Michellee Marie B.

Chavez BM 201

2004-39460

Upon reading the article stating that the Philippines was owned by the Tallano clan, I recalled from my Philippine history classes that the concept of Philippines being a country happened only during the Spanish time, that in 1521, it was discovered by a Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, who was serving the Spanish crown. He was then killed on a rebellion by a Datu named Lapu Lapu in Mactan Island. The Philippines got its name after Prince Phillip of Spain, where Spain ruled our country for about 356 years. I havent encountered anything before that the Philippines was once ruled by a royal family prior to the Spanish times; it was never taught in school. Thus, the claim of the Tallanos that they own the Philippines seems to be so surprising. If this is really true, then, why it wasnt taught? Why is it only now that this arises? Is there something behind this that shouldnt be known by the Filipinos or is it simply a tale? As I understand from what I read, the Tallanos are claiming that they own the Philippines by virtue of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-01-4, which is the Title of the Philippine Archipelago. Reading the first part of the article makes me wonder whether there is a truth with this claim, though it was stated in the last part of the title that it exists and was found authentic. I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding legal issues, but I am not sure if the said authenticated title is true or is there something that goes beyond being authenticated to disprove or to prove the claims of the Tallanos. As far as I know, the title still needs verification to prove its authenticity and validity. Effective possession of property or control of it is one of the indices of ownership. This claim of the Tallanos is spurious and bordering lunacy. Why is this part been neglected from the textbooks that were used in school considering that it is an important part of Philippine history that every Filipinos should know? Will there be any consequence if this part of history is valid and who will be the ones affected? Assuming this claim is true, the ones who will be affected are us, our nationality as Filipinos and our sovereignty as a nation. Can the Tallano royal family (which means any of its successor which may be a British since Tallano was married to a British lady) just land grabbed the country in reference to the said authenticated title? Are we only borrowing lands from them? With a mere insight, we shouldnt be bothered; our existing government can protect us in this part, and give due-process to the people. I think the title wouldn't be enough for the claim because it would be suppressed or become void through our present Constitution, since in my own opinion, the Constitution supersedes any law. If indeed worse comes to worst, and any successor of the royal family takes over the country, the second question is, would they withstand the current power of the people they will subordinate, and how will they govern? I know

that in the article the family has a well respected leader in the character of King Luisong, and that the country seemed to be very prosperous in his era. There was no saying of an uprising back then in his terms. It is maybe because some of the resources are equally allotted to the people and also because almost all of his subordinates are family members/relatives. If Filipinos are well-known to have respect and submission to their elders, maybe this is one example why theres a zero revolt on the ruler. But if we are to imagine this great royal family running this country today, there will be many fights for reform in all directions as you can see in the news since there are people coming from different families with diversified principles/views. The idea of family-oriented ruling is subordinated by nationalistic approach for the common good. This fight for reform or form of revolt will extend up in terms of economic growth. Back then, it is pictured in the article that the Philippines is a wealthy country since those who were in the ruling power or those who governed were wealthy together with the rest of their descendants. Given the fact that the measurement of the Economic Growth is how much change happened to GDP with the expenditure approach saying that there must be large personal and government spending, investments and export over import. Meaning, if theres the royal family having much of the wealth, government spending is just equal to personal spending since wealth revolves in all their subordinates which are family members/relatives. In comparison with whats happening today, if this will be the case where there are no longer relational ties/bond among the government and the people. There will only be few who will be benefited by the portion of spending. Neither personal nor government spending would contribute to the economy. Hence revolt must be needed to bring back or seek balance in the economy.