Part 6

The above paragraphs apply equally to the bastard's right in the property of his mother. He has, however, no kin to enforce his rights against his mother. Since he is of illegitimate birth, the kin of the father are not in a position to enforce his rights against her; while his mother's kin would not take issue in any matter for him against their nearer kin, his mother. If the mother marries after the birth of the bastard, she usually makes a settlement on her bastard child before marrying. Not infrequently he who marries a woman having a bastard child recognizes that child as his own, and even assigns him a portion of his property. The following are examples:

Dulnuan and Ngahiu of Tupplak carried on a courtship, after the Ifugao fashion, in the agamang (dormitory). Ngahiu became pregnant; but Dulnuan refused to marry her. However, and notwithstanding the fact that he knew her to be pregnant, a third party, Baliu, married Ngahiu. From what motive he did this does not appear: it was probable that he gained financially, since Ngahiu was wealthier than he; and being pregnant as she was, she was in no position to stipulate too closely as to the property of the one who might become her husband. The bastard child, notwithstanding the fact that there were legitimate half brothers and sisters, was given fields by (a) his mother; (b) his natural father, Dulnuan; (c) Baliu, who recognized him as his son.

R, a Christianized Ifugao woman, and a wife who had borne five legitimate children to B, her husband, was indiscreet in her relations with a Spaniard. She bore a mestizo child. B, her husband, did not proceed against his wife and her paramour according to Ifugao law and recognized the child as his own. The legitimate children except one having died, the bastard child inherited from his mother and his mother's husband as if he had been of legitimate birth.

There is a Malay proverb which is used to describe the attitude of the husband in such cases as the above: "Although I did not plant the tree, yet it grew in my garden."

The amount of property that parents settle on a bastard is to a great extent a matter of caprice. His rights to any property whatever, except a single field from his father, are decidedly weaker than those of children of legitimate birth, added to which he has not the right in any case to so great a portion of property.

57. Transfers of property to adopted children.--Customs relating to these transfers are as follows:

(a) An adopted child related to only one of the spouses may inherit from that spouse only.

(b) If the adopted child be a niece or nephew, he inherits or has assigned him all the property of the related parent; provided that there be no brothers or sisters of the related parent except the adopted child's own blood parents. If there be other brothers and sisters, and if these brothers and sisters agree to help stand the funeral expenses of the adopting brother or sister, a small part of the property is given them. But the adopted child inherits the greater part of the property.

(c) If the adopted child be the son or daughter of a cousin, there is assigned him, or he inherits all the property that his parents would inherit in case of the death of the related parent, and a portion in addition. Should the parents not be in the position of being likely to become heirs to the related adopting parent, the adopted child inherits, or has assigned him, only a minor portion of the estate. If there be no brothers and sisters of the parent by adoption, he may have assigned him the greater portion of the estate, however.

(d) If the adopted child be not related by blood to either of the parents by adoption, he inherits, or has assigned him, a small portion of the estate of both adopting parents. The kin of these parents take the lion's share of the estate.

(e) If the adopted child marry a kinsman of the unrelated adopting parent, the unrelated parent usually settles on the spouse of the adopted child, an amount of property about equal to that settled on the adopted child by his kinsman, his other adopting parent, subject, however, to the four rules above.

(f) It is optional with the blood parents of an adopted child to settle no property on him, in case the parents by adoption provide for him in this respect.

The above settlements are customary. They can hardly be said to be rights, however. Often when a child is adopted, his blood parents stipulate with those who adopt as to the property settlement that will be made on the child.

58. Servants and slaves as inheritors.--Retainers have no rights whatever as to the property of their masters. Frequently, however, a small field is settled on them.

59. Wills and testaments.--There are no wills or testaments among the Ifugaos. If a man desires to make a settlement of his property that is out of the ordinary, he must do it before he dies. Even then he would have to get the family's consent to the unusual features. Ifugao parents are singularly impartial in the allotment of the family property to their children. That some children are not loved more than others is unbelievable; but it is exceedingly rare that any child is favored above another in property settlements, except by the law of primogeniture. There is always a lot of talk in connection with the assignment or inheritance of family property--in the matter of talk the Ifugao is not different from other Malays. But it is not often that permanent ill feeling is engendered in such settlements. The laws of the descent of property are, as has been said, the clearest and most concise of all Ifugao laws.

SETTLEMENT OF DEBTS OF THE AGED AND DECEASED

60. When the debtor has children.--At the same time that the wealth of the family is apportioned to the children, account is taken of the debts owed by the family. The debts may or may not be individually apportioned among the children. If the eldest child inherits or receives any property, the obligation of primogeniture holds as to the debts; that is to say, he is responsible for the payment of a greater proportion of them. Otherwise all the children are equally responsible. There are many cases in which the debts that are handed down by an Ifugao's parents greatly exceed the property handed down.

Children who receive no family property are not responsible for the payment of the debts of the parents, provided there be a child or children that do receive family property. The apportionment of the debts of the deceased must be in proportion to the amount of property received. If none receive family property, all are responsible for payment.

61. When the debtor is childless but leaves a spouse.--A spouse is responsible only for those debts incurred in behalf of the couple's mutual interests: for example, debts incurred in obtaining animals for sacrifice in case of sickness of the children of the couple, or for sacrifice at the funeral feasts of the children, or for the purchase of rice fields or other joint possessions of the spouses. A spouse may not be held for debts incurred in the purchase of animals for sacrifice at the funeral feast of a member of the other's family (except for the pig and death blanket due from her family in such cases), nor for debts incurred in paying fines or indemnities levied as a result of the other's misdoing. A spouse may not even be held for debts incurred in providing sacrifices to secure the recovery of her husband from sickness (except for the pig due as stated under section 13; however, this pig is really her own obligation).

62. Debts for which the kin of the deceased are held.--When a debtor dies childless, the kin who inherit, if there be such, must pay debts that were incurred on behalf of their family. They are, too, jointly responsible with the wife, for these debts incurred on behalf of the debtor's descendants. If there be nothing inherited, all the kin are responsible for these debts in proportion to nearness of the kinship.

It is a matter of doubt as to whether a man's kin or his spouse can be held for his gambling debts. Such debts are purely personal, and are about the only debts that an Ifugao contracts in his own selfish interest. The Ifugaos did not gamble heavily, at least not before the coming of the Spaniards; since their coming, custom in this matter has not had time to crystallize.

63. Attitude toward debts.--A debt is a sacred thing to an Ifugao. The non-payment of a debt is disgraceful. The non-collection is still more disgraceful, for the presumption is that a man who does not collect from his creditors cannot do so. If he cannot collect his debts, it must be because he is a coward. In the babbling that prevails about the rice-wine jar when tongues are loosened, one who has debts long outstanding that other men would collect, hears things not calculated to tickle his pride.

BORROWING AND LENDING

To a far greater proportionate extent is borrowing and lending carried on among the Ifugaos than in our own country. Almost any event that carries with it a large payment or expenditure carries with it as a corollary a large amount of borrowing. The things usually borrowed are death blankets, animals for sacrifice, and rice.

64. Lupe, or interest.--Interest on things borrowed is exceedingly high. But where borrower and lender are brothers, no interest is charged; where they are kin of somewhat remoter degree, a low interest, as a rule, is charged. In any case a special agreement may be made by which the interest is not as high as usual. It may be stated as a general principle that a thing borrowed must be repaid by twice its value if paid soon--that is within a year or even two years. But if repayment be made after a long time, three perhaps, four times the value must be repaid. The Ifugao does not hold to the calendar very severely in reckoning interest. But where full interest is charged, the rule is that a thing borrowed must be repaid by twice its value, even if it be paid within two weeks. Thus rice borrowed two weeks before harvest time must be repaid by double the quantity immediately after harvest.

65. Patang, or interest paid in advance.--This is the Ifugao form of bank discount. It is interest paid in advance for one year. On a carabao (worth usually about eighty pesos) this amounts to thirty pesos a year. At the end of the year if the carabao be not paid back, the patang must be followed by a second payment of the same quantity, called unud, "following," for the next year. If it be intended to repay the carabao within three months, the interest in advance is ten pesos, and is called baloblad.

66. Another form of patang.--Somewhat similar is the fee or interest paid to the owner of anything seized by a man of a different district or village to cover an unpaid indebtedness owed the latter by a neighbor or co-villager of the former. It is the amount of interest usually paid for one year; but there is no unud or further payment, since it is presumed that by the end of the year the delinquent neighbor ought to have been compelled to pay.

Thus A of one village owes C of another village a debt. After several fruitless attempts to collect, C seizes a carabao belonging to B, a co-villager of A. C sends a go-between to pay B thirty pesos, telling him of A's debt, and informing him that he must get his carabao back from A.

GO-BETWEENS

67. The go-between.--No transaction of importance of any sort between persons of different families is consummated without the intervention of a middle man, or go-between, called monbaga (bespeaker) in civil transactions; and monkalun (admonisher) in criminal cases.

Go-betweens are used commonly in (a) buying and selling of family property of whatever kind or value; (b) buying and selling of animals and the more valuable personal property, except chickens, and in some cases pigs; (c) the borrowing of money or other wealth; (d) marriage proposals and the negotiating of marriage contracts; (e) collection of debts; (f) all steps connected with the balal, such as pawn of rice fields, or their redemption; (g) demands for damages to property or persons; (h) the buying back of heads lost in war, the ransoming of the kidnapped, or the making of peace.

The go-between is the principal witness to a transaction. For his services he receives pay which is fixed to a fair degree of exactness for a particular service. This pay ranges from a piece of meat to a fee of twenty or twenty-five pesos.

68. Responsibility of go-betweens.--Go-betweens are responsible to both parties to a transaction, for the correct rendering of tenders, offers, and payments. Their word binds only themselves, however--not their principals. Go-betweens are not agents of one party more than another. They are supposed to be impartial, and interested only in consummating the transaction involved in order to get their fee.

Thus, suppose that A sends B as a go-between to sell a field to C, a man of another district. B finds that he cannot sell the field for the price A asked for it, and, anxious to consummate a sale and so collect his fee, he agrees to sell the field to C for a lower price than that asked by A.

In such a case as this, B is responsible to C in case A refuses to abide by C's agreement to sell. C has the right to collect damages.

The oriental propensity to "squeeze" is proverbial. It is condoned in law--one might almost say legitimized, provided it be not found out. Thus:

A sends B to Nueva Vizcaya to buy a carabao. The regular commission for this service is ten pesos, the agent to deliver a living carabao to the principal, and to be responsible for the value if the carabao die on the route. This, the usual agreement, holds between them. A furnishes B with eighty pesos with which to purchase the animal. B returns with the animal, representing that he paid seventy pesos for it, when, as a matter of fact, he paid out sixty pesos, thus gaining ten pesos "squeeze."

If A finds out that B paid only sixty pesos for the carabao, the only thing he can do is to collect the ten pesos difference between what A paid and what he said he paid. He cannot assess punitive damages.

69. Conditions relieving a go-between of responsibility.--An act of God or the acts of a public enemy relieve a go-between or an agent from responsibility. Thus an agent sent to purchase an animal in baliwan (the stranger country) is under obligation to deliver it alive. But if it be struck by lightning, or if the carabao be taken away from him by enemies, and he has a wound to bear witness that he offered due resistance to them; or, in case he has no wound, if he has witnesses or good proof of the fact that the enemy was so superior in force as to make resistance foolhardy, he cannot be held for payment of the animal.

70. Payment due those who find the body of one dead by violence.--An Ifugao who finds the body of one dead by violence or drowning, and not an inhabitant of the same district as himself, must perform a general welfare feast to remove the liability to misfortune that is likely to result from such an incident. Consequently, he is entitled to a payment, varying from one to ten pesos, according to the rank of the dead person. If there be more than one who encounter the dead body, all are entitled to the same payment. This payment is called halat.

CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY

71. On whom binding.--Contracts for the transfer of property for consideration are binding on the seller only. Rarely, if ever, is there a payment to bind the bargain. The simple promise to sell is sufficient to constitute a contract to sell. The breaking of a contract to sell renders the breaker of the contract liable for damages only in case he took the initiative in making the contract.

Damages paid for the breaking of a contract to sell, are called hogop. In case an agreement to sell a rice field is broken, the damages are usually one large pig (fifteen or twenty pesos). In the case of questions of this sort over minor property, the hogop may be a death blanket, a small pig, or a chicken.

The following examples will serve to illustrate:

A sends B as a go-between to sell a rice field. B first contracts to sell the field to C. Later, knowing the terms of the sale offered by A to be very advantageous, he sells the field to a kinsman D.

In this case B is liable for the hogop to C.

In the above case B, after contracting to sell the field to C, duly reports to A that C has accepted the terms offered, and that he is raising the amount required for the first payment; that he will go again by agreement with C to receive this first payment on such and such a day. A sells the field to somebody else.

In this case A is liable to C for the hogop, and to B for his fee as go-between.

It becomes a matter of common knowledge that A has a gold neck-ornament for sale. C agrees to purchase at the stated price and A agrees to sell to him. A sells the ornament to somebody else.

A is not liable for the hogop, for the reason that C made the first advances.

In no case can one who makes a contract to buy be held for any payment of damages for breaking his contract.

IRRIGATION LAW

72. The law as to new fields.--If all the land below a spring or small stream located on ownerless land, be common land--that is, land without an owner--he who makes the first rice field below the source of the water supply is entitled to all the water needed for his rice field. Another man, making a rice field between the field of the first comer and the source of the water supply, may not use the spring or stream to the detriment of the first comer.

But should a man make a field, be it on common or on owned land, below a spring or stream, and should another man make a field between the first field and the source of the water supply on owned land, the second comer would have the right to whatever water might be useful to him.

73. The law as to water.--Water which has been flowing to an area of irrigated land may under no circumstances be diverted to irrigate a different area, even though that area be nearer the source of the water.

A person who acquires rice fields, one of which is near the source of the water supply and the other at a considerable distance from it, may not pipe or trough the water from the upper field to the lower one if the water has meantime been irrigating an intervening area. Thus:

Manghe of Ambabag, having a field near Baay, acquires a field near Ambabag, about a quarter of a mile upstream from the first. He threatens to put a line of troughs from one field to another so as to supply sufficient water to the lower field. This action would rob intervening fields of their accustomed water supply, and would be illegal.

A spring belongs to him on whose land it is situated, and so also does all the water issuing from the spring. The owner may sell the surplus water to whom he pleases. The water rights so sold are perpetual. Thus:

A has a rice field in which there is a spring. He sells the water to B, whose field is to one side--perhaps at a considerable distance from A's. C has a field immediately below A's. He purchases A's field and unites it with his own. But he may not divert the water from A's original field to his own original field, unless he buy the water right from B.

74. The law as to irrigation ditches.--Constructors of an irrigation ditch may sell interest in the ditch. The ditch thus shared with others becomes an equal burden as to upkeep on all the owners.

The constructors of an irrigation ditch who have sold part of the water from their ditch, must share the water in time of water scarcity with those to whom they have sold, in proportion to the respective areas of the rice fields. That is, every owner of an irrigation ditch is entitled to a share proportionate to the area of his rice land, of the water diverted by means of the ditch.

Repetition of the malicious destruction of an irrigation ditch, or the turning of the water from it or out of it, is an offense punishable by fine or even in some cases by death. The first offense, when the culprit is discovered, is not punished; but there is a warning against repetition.

Diversion of water from an irrigation ditch in which the diverter has no interest is not a very serious offense. On the first offense the diverter is warned. If he repeats it, all the water is drained from his field or he is given a beating.

PENAL LAW

PENALTIES

The Ifugaos have two punishments for crime: the death penalty and fine. These punishments are inflicted and executed by the offended person and his kin.

75. Nature and reckoning of fines.--Fines are of two sorts: fines of "tens," bakid, and fines of "sixes," na-onom, each unit of the ten or six being a portion of the whole fine. The different parts of the fine go to different people. Oftentimes sticks, knots, or notches are used to assist in calculation. In Banaue and neighboring districts these aids to calculation are also kept as a record. The unit payments grow successively smaller from the first to the last.

The first unit of any series is called pu-u, meaning "base." It is of the greatest value, and goes to the injured individual. The second payment, sometimes, goes to the go-between. In that case, the kin of the injured man take all the rest. If the fee of the go-between be provided for outside of the fine, the kin of the injured man take all except the pu-u, the first unit. This is but just, since they have backed their kinsman in his action against the offender, have perchance risked their lives in his cause, and also stand ready at all times to help pay any fines that others may assess against him.

The second, and sometimes the third and fourth units, are called haynub di pu-u, meaning "followers of the base." They are of less value than the pu-u. Then follow units consisting, each, of four irons (spear-heads, axes, knives). These units are called natauwinan. Then come units of three irons each, called natuku; then units of two irons each, called nunbadi; then units of one iron each, called na-oha. In the case of fines composed of six units, there is usually no haynub.