The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 — Volume 07 of 55: 1588-1591; Explorations by Early Navigators, Descriptions of the Islands and Their Peoples, Their History and Records of the Catholic Missions, as Related in Contemporaneous Books and Manuscripts, Showing the Political, Economic, Commercial and Religious Conditions of Those Islands from Their Earliest Relations with European Nations to the Close of the Nineteenth Century
History
The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 — Volume 07 of 55: 1588-1591; Explorations by Early Navigators, Descriptions of the Islands and Their Peoples, Their History and Records of the Catholic Missions, as Related in Contemporaneous Books and Manuscripts, Showing the Political, Economic, Commercial and Religious Conditions of Those Islands from Their Earliest Relations with European Nations to the Close of the Nineteenth Century
Demarcation line of Alexander VI; Missions -- Philippines; Philippines -- Discovery and exploration; Philippines -- History -- Sources
When the parents gave a dowry to any son, and, when, in order to
marry him to a chief's daughter, the dowry was greater than the
sum given the other sons, the excess was not counted in the whole
property to be divided. But any other thing that should have been
given to any son, though it might be for some necessity, was taken
into consideration at the time of the partition of the property,
unless the parents should declare that such a bestowal was made
outside of the inheritance. If one had had children by two or more
legitimate wives, each child received the inheritance and dowry of
his mother, with its increase, and that share of his father's estate
which fell to him out of the whole. If a man had a child by one of his
slaves, as well as legitimate children, the former had no share in
the inheritance; but the legitimate children were bound to free the
mother, and to give him something--a tael or a slave, if the father
were a chief; or if, finally, anything else were given it was by the
unanimous consent of all. If besides his legitimate children, he had
also some son by a free unmarried woman, to whom a dowry was given
but who was not considered as a real wife, all these were classed as
natural children, although the child by the unmarried woman should
have been begotten after his marriage. Such children did not inherit
equally with the legitimate children, but only the third part. For
example, if there were two children, the legitimate one had two parts,
and the one of the _inaasava_ one part. When there were no children
by a legitimate wife, but only children by an unmarried woman, or
_inaasava_, the latter inherited all. If he had a child by a slave
woman, that child received his share as above stated. If there were
no legitimate or natural child, or a child by an inaasava, whether
there was a son of a slave woman or not, the inheritance went only
to the father or grandparents, brothers, or nearest relatives of the
deceased, who gave to the slave-child as above stated.
In the case of a child by a free married woman, born while she was
married, if the husband punished the adulterer this was considered
a dowry; and the child entered with the others into partition in the
inheritance. His share equaled the part left by the father, nothing
more. If there were no other sons than he, the children and the nearest
relatives inherited equally with him. But if the adulterer were not
punished by the husband of the woman who had the child, the latter
was not considered as his child, nor did he inherit anything. It
should be noticed that the offender was not considered dishonored
by the punishment inflicted, nor did the husband leave the woman. By
the punishment of the father the child was fittingly made legitimate.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account