Catholic, Sangley, , Spaniard, Filipino: Negotiating "Chinese" Identities at the Turn-of-the-Twentieth-Century -

Richard T. Chu

Introduction Among the Chinese diasporic communities in Southeast,Asia, none offers more distinct food for thought in the study of identities than the case of the Philippine Chinese. For compared to their Southeast Asian counterparts, they and their descendants had experienced living under the control of not just one but three colonial regimes (Spanish, American, Japanese), and under the influence of two nationalist movements (Chinese and Filipino) -all of which had different ways of classifying their ethnic identities. Furthermore, the had had a very strong interest in their conversion since the colonized the in 1565, leading scholars to take into account when studying their ethnicity both State and Church classifications.' Thus, the study of the ethnogenesis of the Philippine Chinese-especially when viewed from the perspective of the Chinese themselves-offers potentially rich, new, and important insights into the meanings and complexity of what constitutes a "Chinese" and a "Catholic" over time,

•An earlier version of this paper was presented at the panel on "Transnational Communities in the Philippines," Sixth International Philippine Studies Conference, Quezon City, 11 July 2000. I am particularly grateful to Edgar Wickberg, John E. Wills, [r., Charlotte Furth, and Eugenio Menegon for their comments. .space, and context. But while there have been few studies focusing on the legal and ethno-religious categories constructed by these hegemonic groups, there have been even fewer studies analyzing the ways these diasporic "Chinese" managed to creatively adapt to and appropriate the meanings and symbolisms of their localized identifications (for instance, Hodder, 1996; and Szanton-Blanc, 1997).

Overview of Related Literature Historical works on the Philippine Chinese share with other studies of "" communities the same bias towards the use of earlier sociological and anthropological theories of ethnicity­ theories that are based on the concepts of assimilation and integration and often tied-up to nation-based metanarratives (Ong and Nonini, 1997:7).2 Thus, the i'Chinese" in the different Southeast Asian countries are often viewed as one discrete, homogeneous group pitted against a similarly homogenized community of "Thais," "Indonesians," "Malaysians," "," etc., while the creole offspring of these "Chinese" - the lukjins of Thailand, the babas of Malaysia, the of Indonesia, or the of the Philippines - are considered either as having formed another distinct ethnic group, or having been assimilated into one of the local ethnic groups (see Skinner, 1957, 1959, and 1996; Purcell, 1948; Tan, 1988; Willmott, 1956; Williams, 1960; Coppel, 1983; Suryadinata, 1979; Wickberg, 1964, 2000). However, recent works in cultural studies have shown these ethnic constructions to be the modus operandi by which national governments and other dominant groups have sought to control others in order to achieve certain political ends (Anderson, 1991; Eley and Suny, 1996; Hobsbawn and Ranger, 1983). For instance, while the formation of a united "Chinese" community in the Philippines may have provided the "Chinese" there with some form of leverage and protection against increasing uncertainty and hostility over their fate as an "alien" community during the American colonial period, this reification of their identity had also fostered local ethnic tension. Thus, we as scholars may unwittingly contribute to this ethnic tension if and when we fail to question and deconstruct the

42 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-OF-THE-1'wENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA administrative, ideological, and religious classificatory systems of the colonial rulers and the nationalist rhetoric of the leaders in China and in the Philippines. In fact, many scholars have already begun to veer away from such an approach to the study of ethnicity, focusing instead on how different ethnic groups view themselves and others (see, for example, Leonard, 1992; Oxfeld, 1993; Chan and Wong, 1998). Such an approach not only provides us with a more complex and sophisticated understanding of "identity" but also brings back agency to the people whom we study. Following the lead of these studies, I plan to show in this paper how the "Chinese" and their families at the turn of the century negotiated their differing identities and cultural backgrounds. Through an investigation of some of their familial "border-crossing" practices, particularly their marriage practices and dispensation of their wealth and property, I hope to show how they managed to creatively appropriate Chinese, Spanish, Catholic, and local practices in their everyday lives. My main argument is to show that the so-called "Chinese" and their "mestizo" offspring during the late-nineteenth century were not distinctly separate and homogeneous ethnic groups. Rather, I argue that the categories "Catholic," "sangley," or "mestizo" can also be understood as flowing along a shifting and problematic continuum. Consequently, I hope to offer an alternative view to the modern-day nationalist constructions of a rigid, unchanging, and universal "Chinese" and "Filipino" binary; and to past studies using the assimilationist-integrationist model in the study of the Chinese in the Philippines. I must point out that this paper is a preliminary research report. But in writing and presenting it, I hope to alert other scholars to new archival materials that can be used for the study of the Chinese and mestizos in the Philippines, inform them of the direction of my research, solicit their feedback and comments, and invite them to use a similar approach in the study of ethnic relations and identities in the Philippines. Before proceeding to discuss these marriage and inheritance cases, I wouldlike to give an overview of the different ethno-legal classifications used by the Spanish and American colonial rulers for the Chinese and their families at the end of the nineteenth and

R. T.CHU 43 the beginning ·of the twentieth centuries. Also, I would like to highlight how other scholars, particularly Edgar Wickberg, have analyzed the relations between the Chinese and their mestizo descendants.

Historical Background

The Spanish Colonial Period: 1565 to 1898 According to Edgar Wickberg, in areas penetrated by the Spaniards, and particularly in those that later became centers of trade and commerce, there grew different cultural communities consisting of Spaniards, the natives, and the Chinese (2000:7). Soon, socio-cultural and political distinctions among them were built into the Spanish 'colonial administrative structure. Aside from the category "Spaniard," the classification"indio" was used for the natives, while the Chinese were called "sangley."3 But as unions between the Chinese and the natives grew in number, so did the number of mestizo children. Thus, around the middle of the eighteenth century, another classification was created for these creole offspring, turning urban centers like Manila and into a community of "indios," "sangleys," and "mestizos."4 Initially, this division among the different groups under Spanish colonial rule was mainly drawn along tax purposes. However, this division soon included rights to travel, property ownership, and participation in government. For such rights, the division was two-fold, in that the indios and the mestizos shared the same rights while the Chinese did not (Wickberg, 1964:64-65; 2000:31). . Wickberg also notes that the creation of a mestizo class was partly a result of the Spaniards' policy of conversion and control. The Chinese who chose to convert enjoyed more benefits than those who did not. Among the benefits they had was the opportunity to marry local women. The Spaniards hoped that with the creation of more Catholic Chinese-mestizo families, not only would they be carrying out their mission of conversion, but they would also be creating a colony of loyal and faithful subjects (2000:68-69).5

44 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTIJRY MANILA However, from around the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries, the Spanish colonial government began to slowly remove the benefits enjoyed by Chinese converts over non-converts. For instance, the restrictions commonly reserved for non-Catholics, such as the restrictions on the freedom of travel or to own land, were gone by the late eighteenth century. Moreover, the Spaniards stopped classifying them according to religious affiliation" and began to classify them instead in terms of residence status, i.e, as "transient" (invernado) or "resident" (radicado) (Wickberg, 2000:155). But in spite of the fact that religious affiliation no longer was the basis for classifying the Chinese, it still played an important role up to the end of the Spanish colonial period. For instance, those who aspired to state-recognized leadership positions still had to be Catholic. And even if the Spanish Civil Code that was extended to the Philippines in- 1889 allowed people to many in civil courts, this change was never carried out, thus making conversion still a prerequisite (Fisher, 1947:vi; Wiley, n.d:138). Furthermore, in 1840, when the Spaniards made it possible for the Chinese to become naturalized subjects of Spain, one had to be baptized in order to qualify for naturalization." Lastly, in my own research I have found government and Church documents dating up to 1902 that still use the classification"el chino cristiano" in reference to a Chinese convert. Wickberg points out that at the end of the nineteenth century, the use of "sangley" began to disappear in official records. Instead, the word"chino" began to be used. The reason behind this may lie in the desire of the Spanish colonial government to please the Chinese government, with whom it wanted to establish official economic and diplomatic exchange. However, Wickberg believes that whatever the official designation, in popular practice the Chinese continued to be called "sangley," or more commonly, the Tagalog word "insik" (2000:155). On the other hand, the mestizo was defined by law as a person whose father was Chinese or mestizo. They were considered indigenous subjects of Spain rather than as those of China and had the same legal rights as the indios. By around 1810, there were approximately 120,000 mestizos, or five percent of the total

R.T.eMU 45 Philippine population of about 2,500,000. However, in the whole province of Tondo, which included then the northern part of Manila, including and Santa Cruz, the mestizos made up about thirty percent of the population (Wickberg, 1964:73). By law, male descendants of Chinese paternal ancestors were classified as mestizos, even after several generations (Wickberg, 2000: 33; Robles, 1969:77). However, the situation was different for female descendants. Through marriage, a mestiza might change status. Thus, while a mestiza marrying a mestizo or a Chinese remained in the mestizo classification, as did her children, if she married an indio or Spaniard she and her children assumed her husband's classification (Wickberg, 1964:73). Presumably, an india became a mestiza when she married a mestizo. However, this kind of legislation posed a problem for mestizos who wished to change their classification to indio or Chinese. But both male mestizos and indios still could change their classification for tax purposes. This occurred especially in the provinces. An example is Jose Rizal's father who changed his and his children's status in the tax-census register from Chinese mestizo to indio. But in urban areas, the mestizos preferred to retain their high status and not change their status to indio (Wickberg, 2000: 33-34). However, Wickberg also notes that he found one case of a mestizo maintaining strong ties and identification with the Chinese community." In the last half of the nineteenth century, the mestizo population grew to around 150,000 to 300,000, out of a mean population of 5,500,000 (roughly six percent of the total population). This rise in their population may be attributed to several factors in the previous one-hundred years (1750-1850), a time in which the mestizos grew in scale and in number. One of these factors was the Spanish colonial policy of 1755 that deported non-Catholic Chinese as a means of controlling the number of Chinese staying in the colony. Those who opted to stay thus had to convert to Catholicism, which enabled them to marry local Catholic women. Consequently, the Chinese community in Manila was transformed into a Catholic one and this contributed to the accelerated increase of-Chinese mestizos (Sugaya, 2000:556-557).9 Wickberg also writes that the "perpetua­ tion of a mestizo group was also aided by the post-1800 marriage

46 "CHINESE" IDENTITIESAT lHETURN-OF-lHE-1'wENnElH-eENTURY MANILA legislation, which tended to discourage mestizo-indio marriages." Legal status then, he continues, was not"ordinarily a matter of personal orientation or choice" but of the"status of the parents" (1964:65). According to several scholars, the history of the Philippine nation­ state can not be written without including the role and contributions of the Chinese mestizos (see Wickberg, 1964 and 2000; Agoncillo, 1974; Tan, 1985). Some of the more well known Chinese mestizos were Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, three secular priests who were executed for their alleged participation in the Mutiny in 1872. Other well-known Chinese mestizos include Jose Rizal, Pedro Paterno, Gregorio Sancianco, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Flaviano Yenko. Financial contributions to the revolution were made by other Chinese mestizos such as Roman Ongpin, Mariano Limjap, Telesforo Chiudian, and Luis Yangco (Tan, 1972:17). Many of these Chinese mestizos were educated abroad and imbibed a lot of the ideas from the reform movement in Spain and in other parts of the world. In their desire to achieve equal status with those of Spanish peninsulares, they fought to be regarded as "Filipinos" likewise. Together with other indios, they sought to establish a nation ruled by "Filipinos," those not of foreign birth but born and raised in the Philippines. Moreover, with the abolish­ ment of the tribute in the 1880' s that removed the legal distinction between indio and mestizo, and with the disappearance of the gremios" upon American takeover, individuals were faced with the choice of either being Spaniard, Filipino, or Chinese (Wickberg, 1964:95). However, I must point out that in my archival research I found separate tax registers dating up to 1898 for mestizos and indios in the districts of Santa Cruz and Binondo. Thus, further study needs to be done to check whether the legal distinctions were indeed abolished in the 1880s (see RMAO,V, Binondo and V, Sta. Cruz). In his seminal work The Chinese in Philippine Life (2000),11 Wickberg hypothesizes that by 1900,

the unmodified term'mestizo' no longer referred to the Chinese mestizo, but had acquired the meaning it has today: Spanish mestizo or Eurasian in general. .

R.T.Coo 47 There was no longer a third ethnic status as an alternative for Chinese mestizos. ... (2000: 141) The Chinese mestizos could either merge with the indios into a new Filipino society, or return to the Chinese community (Wickberg, 2000:145). But Wickberg writes that as ethnic definitions were being simplified and nationalized, few mestizos chose to be considered Chinese. The reason for this was that, culturally, the mestizos identified themselves more with the native but similarly hispanized and Catholic community, and not with the Chinese community. Thus, the more hispanized a person or a class was, the more anti­ Chinese he became, since the Chinese were considered, among other things, as heathens. However, in Wickberg's analysis class background also played a role in a mestizo's relationship with the Chinese. Since those who were hispanized mostly belonged to the wealthier class, this means that the wealthier a mestizo was, the farther he moved away from the Chinese community. Conversely, the less wealthy a mestizo was, the less hispanized he was and the more Chinese he became (2000: 137). Thus, prior to the height of hispanization in Philippine society in the nineteenth-century, [t]hose who were heavily hispanized stopped in the mestizo gremios and stayed there. Those who were moderately hispanized might pause in the mestizo community and classification and then move on to total assimilation as indios. Those in Manila who were lightly hispanized and in contact with the Chinese cultural alternative might pause for a generation and then move into the Chinese community (Wickberg, 2000:35). On the other hand, Wickberg also writes that lower class mestizos • and indios still felt a certain antagonism towards the Chinese due to the economic competition the latter provided, and not so much to a cultural reaction to their difference, which is the case with upper class mestizos and indios (2000:35). Thus, it was between the upper-class mestizos and the indios, both of whom underwent a high level of hispanization and "political

48 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-GF-THE-TWENTlETH-eENTURY MANILA Filipinization," that a commonality and a rapport was found. He explains, the Chinese mestizos were more Spanish than the Spanish, more Catholic than the Catholics. Yet with those characteristics they combined a financial acumen that seemed out of place. Rejecters of their Chinese heritage, they were not completely at home with their indio heritage. The nearest approximation to them was the urbanized, heavily-hispanized indio. Only when hispanization had reached a high level in the nineteenth century urban areas could the mestizo find a basis of rapport with the indio. Thus, during the late nineteenth century, because of cultural, economic, and social changes, the mestizos' increasingly identified themselves with the indios in a new kind of 'Filipino' cultural and national consensus (1964:97). [italics mine] While Wickberg's analysis does help explain why people like the Cojuangcos or Yupangcos of today, certainly of Chinese mestizo background, are now considered "Filipinos," it does leave some questions unanswered. For example, what happened to the lower-class mestizos in the latter part of the nineteenth-century? Did they also choose to become "Filipinos" or did they become "Chinese" like those in earlier times? Furthermore, how about the Chinese, especially those who converted to Catholicism or became Spanish subjects? Did they not also undergo a "political Filipinization" and thus become "Filipinos" in the American colonial period, or did they become "Chinese"? Unfortunately, Wickberg remains unclear as to the first question, but it can be inferred from his analysis that lower-class mestizos, like the upper-class mestizos, also became "Filipinos." As for the Chinese who became Catholics, he seems to imply that they stayed "Chinese," for he writes that during the latter part of the nineteenth-century, the "Chinese" were already beginning to think themselves as a national minority, as "indeed the Spaniards had begun to classify them" (2000:154). And with the increase of anti-Chinese sentiment in the 1880s and early 1890s, the Chinese began to look for ways to organize themselves more cohesively and to seek outside

, R.T.CHu 49 protection, i.e. from China. Indeed, attempts were made to establish a Chinese consulate in Manila in the 1880s but these were not successful. But after several more attempts made by local Chinese leaders, a temporary Chinese consulate in the Philippines was finally approved by Spain in July of 1898, with the permanent one confirmed in 1899 (Wickberg, 2000:214-244). Thus at the end of the nineteenth-century and prior to the American colonial rule, what Wickberg is saying is that the ground seemed set for people to become either "Chinese" or "Filipinos." While to a great extent, this is true, what I hope to present in this paper are that at this critical period in history identities remained very much fluid and that mestizos, particularly those belonging to the first generation, did not necessarily lose their "Chinese-ness." But before proceeding to discuss how Wickberg's interpretation can be further expanded or complemented by a different approach to the study of identities, I would like to continue my historical overview of what legal ethnic classifications were used for the "Chinese" and their offspring. I now turn to the early years of the American colonial period.

The American Period: The First Few Years, 1898 to1905 As one scholar points out, the was at a loss on how to administer the Islands at the beginning of its colonial rule there. It was not well versed in its laws, customs, and practices of its people, and of the system of the past administration (Wilson, 1998:214). Thus, even though the Chinese Exclusion Act was made operative in the Philippines in September of 1898 under the provisional military government of Brigadier-General E.S. Otis, the measure was temporary. In an effort to gather more information about their new colony and its inhabitants, the First Philippine Commission conducted several hearings in 1899. Many people­ foreign businessmen, Chinese, and natives - were called to give testimonies about the Chinese labor question. Bu't during these sessions, questions were also asked regarding the mestizos. Thus, this shows us that at least around 1899, the mestizos had not yet

50 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-OF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA been considered culturally as belonging to the wider "Filipino" community. Some of the responses given by the different people provide us with some insight on how mestizos were perceived, but what strikes me most is the definition given by Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien, a prominent Chinese businessman and a recognized leader of his community. He testified: In the commencement a Chinaman marries a Tagalog woman and they get children from that marriage, and their children marry in time, and the descendants of that marriage are called mestizos (U.S. Philippine Commission, 1899-1900:224). Thus, in his response we can see that Palanca distinguished between those belonging to the first generation of these inter­ marriages, and those who came afterwards. Past scholarship tend to lump the first generation and later generation mestizo offspring together. But such a distinction is important to make, since, as I will show later, these first-generation mestizos may have had a different perception of their own identity compared to the ones who were several generations down. In 1902, the U.S. Congress approved the extension of the Chinese exclusion laws to the Philippines and directed the Philippine Commission to make the necessary regulations to make the law effective. Through the Executive Order and the act of Congress of March 3, 1903, the immigration laws were put into effect in the Islands. Later on, an enactment of the U.S. Congress in 1904 established the Chinese Exclusion as a permanent policy that continued to be in force until 1940 (Jensen, 1975:49). In this law, all Chinese entering as coolies were barred from entering. Those exempted included Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants, or tourists. But what about the children of these Chinese? Were they exempted too? Jensen, quoting the War Department, states that the exclusion laws applied to all persons who were directly descended from one or both parents of pure Chinese blood; and that the mixture of blood other than Chinese, when the Chinese blood predominated, would not be held to

R. T.CHu 51 exempt persons from the operation of those laws. The definition also stated that while the question had not been passed upon judicially, if a concrete case arose in which the admixture of Chinese blood was less than half or in which the white blood predominated, then the Department would be inclined to decide in favor of the predominant white blood '(1975:67). Thus, from this we can say that mestizos who had Chinese fathers and local mothers and who happened to be in China at the time of the enforcement of the exclusion laws could also be barred from entering the Islands. As to the question of citizenship, the American colonial govern­ ment decreed under the Philippine Bill of 1902 that all those who were Spanish subjects prior to April 11, 1899 were deemed citizens of the Philippine Islands. Their children who were born in the Islands were regarded likewise (Azcuna, 1969: 75). But the application of the Chinese Exclusion Laws of the U.S. to the Philippines barred the other Chinese, i.e., those who did not become naturalized Spanish subjects, from being eligible to apply for Filipino citizenship." Thus, mestizo children whose parents remained Chinese subjects and while remaining under their parental authority were also considered "Chinese." However, upon reaching the age of majority or emanci­ pation, they must state within a year whether they want to become Filipino citizens." Finally, according to Article 22 of the Civil Code, a woman follows the nationality of her husband (Fisher, 1947:18). Thus, a "Filipino" woman marrying a "Chinese" lost her citizenship and became "Chinese." In the preceding paragraphs, I have tried to show how the Chinese and their mestizo offspring had been classified by the Spanish and American colonial regimes. I have also tried to outline the events by which the three-way classificatory system during the Spanish colonial period gave way to a two-way classificatory system at the turn of the twentieth-century, and the analysis of Edgar Wickberg on what ethnic choices people made during this time.

52 "CHINESE" IDENTITIESAT THETURN-OF-THE-l'wENnETH-eENTURY MANILA However, as I pointed out at the beginning of this paper, such an interpretation of the ethnogenesis of the "Chinese" and "Filipino" follows the nationalist script of the post-colonial governments, which were mostly interested in 'classifying people under their rule into categories of "us" versus"them" in their bid to build a strong nation­ state. Thus, there was no leeway for the recognition of ambiguous identities. Furthermore, the study of these"cverseas" Chinese in the 1950s and the 1960s, including Wickberg's, was mainly concerned with the question of how these"overseas Chinese" communities managed to retain or lose their Chinese-ness in their "host' societies. Ong and Nonini criticizes this approach as arising from"obsessions of a cold war-era evolutionist Parsonian social science" that were "elaborated within the burgeoning fields of East Asian and Southeast Asian area studies during the period of American world hegemony." In this period, the Chinese"overseas" were often studied as "an imperfect replication of the template or real 'Chinese culture' in China, which was temporarily not accessible to inquiring social scientists because of the closing of the Curtain... (T)he Cold War and the status of Communist China are affecting the perception of statuses within the l,ate colonial and newly independent nation-states of Southeast Asia...." (1997:7). Thus, while this approach is not without its merits, it nevertheless essentializes and reifies the identities of people which not only contributes to ethnic divisions but also deprives people of their proper agency. Following the recent works of cultural anthropologists and historians, I am going to present in the next section another way of viewing these people's identities that goes beyond the legal ascription of these governments and that attempts to look at how these people possibly understood and lived out their identities. I aim to do this by looking into some of their marriage and inheritance practices as seen from testaments they left behind.

Marriage and Inheritance Cases These testaments were mainly culled from the Protocolo de Manila at the Record Management and Archives Office (RMAO). The protocolos are bound volumes of contracts and instruments drawn up by different individuals living in Manila, and which were

R. T.CHU 53 notarized by one of the eight notary publics found in the city during the period under study." The documents range from powers of attorney to sales of property and goods, but some are testaments. Each protocol contains about a thousand instruments, and the manner by which I set out to look for these testaments was to go through the indices of the protocols belonging to two notary publics, whose indices contain a good number of Chinese clients. The years I focused on are from 1895 to 1902. 15 However, for some years, particularly from the years 1896-1898, there were very few instru­ ments drawn up, owing to the political uncertainties of the time. Out of the thousands of entries in the indices that I looked through, I was able to find a number of testaments drawn up by Chinese and mestizos, from which I chose nine. These were chosen on the basis of the substantial data contained in them regarding the testators and their wills. Though nine cases may seem few to make any final or conclusive generalizations about the community, they nevertheless provide a rich source of information about specific Chinese and mestizo individuals that may be of use to other scholars. More importantly, they serve as a starting point with which to introduce and test my hypothesis that identities during the period under study were also fluid and ambiguous. Again, it is my hope that my inter­ pretive comments will not only alert other scholars to the direction of my research, but also stimulate tHem into discussion about the way we understand identities and ethnic relations in the Philippines. Out of the nine (9) cases that I have chosen to include here are the following statistical information and description. Eight (8) belong to male testators, and only one (1) to a female. Their ages ranged from the early 30s to the early 70s; three (3) of the cases involve people who had already died, and whose testaments were being subjected either to. implementation, protocolization, or contestation, while the rest were wills of people drawn up while they were still living. Most of the reasons for drawing up these wills were in anticipation of impending death, although this does not necessarily mean that the person died immediately soon after. But there was one that was drawn up because the person was returning to China, and probably did not expect to return very soon (Federico R. Correa Lao-Sarna). All of the testators owned at least some property, and' all of them, including the female testator, were comerciantes or owners of businesses.

54 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-OF-THE-'fwENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA Until further research proves me otherwise, I believe that the laws relating to inheritance and wills apply equally to all those who lived under Spanish colonial rule. For according to Jensen, based on a report submitted by Brigadier-General Otis to the Secretary of War in Washington, "a Chinese person entering the islands came as an individual migrant and was treated as a Spanish subject, whose business and domestic relations were entirely under the control of the local laws. These laws provided for the estate of a deceased resident Chinese the same as if he had been a Spanish citizen" (1975: 27). Thus, these inheritance cases were governed by the rules of the New Civil Code of Spain instituted in the Philippines in 1889. 16 According to Fisher (1947), the Americans continued to use the Code as the basis for civil law. Though there were some changes made - including those that pertain to "wills, the rights and liabilities of heirs and devisees, guardianship, and the rights of parents with respect to the property of their children" - these changes were mostly procedural. Fisher writes that "the Civil Code is still essentially the fundamental law governing the acquisition, conveyance, and transmission of property, the incidents of its ownership, and the creation and extinction of contractual and extra­ contractual obligations" (1947: ix-x). As for marriages, although as early as 1870 a law was promul­ gated in Spain to provide for couples to enter into civil marriages, this law never was enforced in the Philippines, due to resistance from the local Catholic Church. Only in 1899 were civil and canonical marriages given equal validity (Fisher, 1947:viii-ix). Of the nine testators, eight were married, and only one was single. Of the eight married men, five were married twice, either after the death of the first wife, or with the second marriage overlapping with the first. Here, we have to distinguish between marriages contracted in China and those in the Philippines, and - ' among those marriages contracted in the Philippines - between consensual ones and the ones consecrated by the Catholic Church. For instance, Sy Tiong-Tay married Chan Sinin "according to the rites of his country" and then married Ana Cuangsi under Catholic rites in Manila," even while his first wife was still alive. Cu-Un-Jieng also was married to Ong Sy18 in China but lived consensually with Dominga Ayala in Manila. On the other hand, Mariano Velasco

R.T.eHU 55 Chuachengco was married simultaneously to two women-to Sy Sacia and to Maria Consolacion Ang Quinio. However, these two marriages were contracted in "rites according to his country" (RMAO, PM 1901, 877, 1). Here I would like to begin to focus on the marriage practices of these testators and to open up the discussion on how these practices reflected a creative and adaptive strategy adopted by these testators in dealing with the laws of China and of Spain. More importantly, I want to show how these cases might lead us to redefine our definitions of being"Chinese" or "Catholic." According to Spanish Catholic Church policy on intermarriages, a Chinese convert could not marry a local woman if he was found to be "married" to another woman, whether consensually or legally." But apparently this did not prevent some of the testators who had wives in China to procure another one in the Philippines, and even marry her in Catholic rites. Such was the case of "el chino cristiano" Lucio Ysabelo Limpangco, who married Chu-Cua in China and had five children with her, then married Francisca Cinco in Manila in Catholic rites, and in turn had two children with her. Others simply did not legalize their marriage until a later time, opting first to live together consensually before applying for a Church marriage. For instance, Sy Tiong-Tay married Chan Sinin in China, and had two children with her. According to his will, Sinin died in 1883. Tiong-Tay married his second wife Ana Cuangsi, also a Chinese national, in Catholic rites on September 2, 1891, just around five months before his death. However, he must have lived with her since 1879, the year that their eldest surviving son was born. He proceeded to have two more children with Ana (RMAO, PM 1901, 830, 3).20 The same was true with Cu-Un-Jieng who married Ong Sy in China, and 'then married Dominga Ayala in Manila. But for a time, it can be inferred from two archival documents that he was only living consensually with Dominga Ayala. The first document is his testament. At noon of March 9, 1901, Un-Jieng, identified as a Chinese subject, businessman, and married"according to the rites of his country to Ong Sy," appeared before the Notary Public Genaro Heredia to draw up his will. In his will, he states that his wife Ong Sy is residing in China, and with whom he has two children. He

56 IICHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-GF-THE-TWENTIETH-CENTURY MANILA then proceeds to provide an inventory of all his possessions, and in the fourth clause, leaves a pension of one hundred pesos per month to Dona Dominga Ayala from the time of his death and as long as she is living. However, in this document, he does not identify her as a legitimate wife. The second document is the protocolization of Ty­ Chiulo's testament. The document, dated 13 October 1900, identifies Un-Jieng as one of the six witnesses of Chiulo's will. The document also identifies him as "soltero" or single, thus bolstering the idea that he and Dominga, at least up until 1901, were only living consensually. I also arrived at this conclusion because some works state that Guillermo "married" Dominga in 1893 (Lim, 1930:18; Wong, 1994:62). However, since this 1900 document still identifies him as "soltero," I believe that they were in fact not married legally but were only living together as common-law husband and wife. Whether they indeed were married legally after 1901 need to be researched later on. What Tiong-Tay's and Un-Jieng's cases seem to point to us is that it must have been quite common for couples-whether of mixed or similar ethnic backgrounds - to live consensually, and with the full knowledge of neighbors and family members. Not only did a traveler in 1840 describe this phenomenon in his memoir, but he also observed that "no odium whatever is attached to such a connexion" (Wilkes, 1974:40). Moreover, the cases of Tiong-Tay and Un-Jieng reflect these testators' creative strategy of negotiating, on the one hand, Chinese customary and legal laws, and on the other, Spanish civil and canon law. In China, the "wives" of both men would have been considered as concubines, and their status and thus their rights were recognized under its laws. However, in the Philippines, they would not have any status at all. These two couples could have stayed as common­ law husbands and wives, but, in the case of Tiong-Tay, he decided to marry Ana in' Catholic rites, just five months before he died. Whatever reasons he had for marrying her at such late a time when they were already staying together for at least twelve years we could only speculate. But should he have died without marrying Ana legally, his children would have been considered illegitimate and would have faced difficulties in obtaining their inheritance, 21 even if according to Article 840 of the Civil Code, they were entitled to it.

R.T.eHu 57 Furthermore, it must have been a matter of timing. As I have noted earlier, in order for a Chinese man to marry someone in Catholic rites, he must have been a resident of the Philippines for at least six years, and a convert for a number of years. Thus, Tiong-Tay and Ana must have weighed the advantages and disadvantages of becoming Catholic converts. And to do so would have required of them a good knowledge of Spanish civil and canon law and adaptive strategies in order to take full advantage of the Spanish government's policies governing their domestic affairs. In fact, Tiong-Tay chose to have himself naturalized as a Spanish subject on December 25, 1891, forty-eight days before his death on February 12, 1892. Again, whatever his reason, it was probably to his advantage to become a Spanish subject." Yet, even if Sy Tiong-Tay decided to become a Spanish subject, he certainly did not forget his filial duties as a Chinese father and son. He made sure to provide in his will that a certain portion of his inheritance would go to his son with his first wife Sinnin, and to the payment of the expenses incurred in the death of Sinnins mother in China. He further stipulated that a certain amount of money be allotted to the erection of a mausoleum in the town of his birthplace, as well as to the alleviation of those suffering from hunger due to a calamity that had hit China recently." Thus in his lifetime, Tiong-Tay managed to appropriate the laws of the Spanish colonial government in a way that did not necessarily compromise his connections with China. As for Un-Iieng, it is quite interesting to note that even if he and Dominga were not married, he managed to use the Spanish Civil Code that allowed a testator to leave some inheritance or donation to people other than his/her immediate relative to provide Dominga with a portion of his inheritance. If they had been married in China, Dominga would not have gained any inheritance as his "second wife" or concubine. On the other hand, the marriage between Lucio, a "Chinese," and Francisca, a native Catholic woman raises the question how the"Chinese" back then, viewed the practice of taking another wife from a different culture and race. From the standpoint of Qing dynasty marriage practices, polygyny (in which a man takes a wife

58 "CHINESE" IDENTITlES AT THE TURN-GF-THE-TWENTIETH-CENTURY MANILA- legally and takes a concubine later on) was allowed (Bernhardt, 1999:161-162). Thus, it would not be too far-fetched to think that Chinese wives back in China did not really oppose their husbands' marriages to another woman from another country. However, seen from today's perspective of what being a "Chinese" means, these inter­ marriages with a "non-Chinese" is "uri-Chinese," since nationalists in the twentieth-century would have it that to be a "Chinese" means to belong to a superior race with a superior culture. Anyone classifying himself or herself as a "Chinese" would not deign to marry someone from another race and culture. Thus, many "Chinese" in the Philippines today still prefer or end up marrying a fellow "Chinese." If someone marries a "Filipino" or huan-a ( word for "foreign barbarian"), a stigma seems to accompany the marriage itself. But if it could be shown through more examples that such intermarriages back then between these diasporic Chinese and local women were common, then we can ask ourselves how this redefines our understanding of what it meant to be a "Chinese" through time and context, and how and when intermarriages with people belonging to another ethnic group became taboo among the "Chinese" in the Philippines. Furthermore, we can extend this to the question of what it meant to be "Catholic" back then. A Catholic today must be faithfully married to just one single person as long as both are still alive. If indeed it can be ascertained that Church policy back in the late nineteenth-century prohibited a Chinese convert who had a wife in China from marrying a local woman in the Philippines, how do we explain his entering into a Church marriage despite the fact that he was legally married to another woman in another country? In the case of Lucio and Francisca, was it possible that the latter simply did not know about the former's previous marriage? Furthermore, how could a Catholic woman like Dominga Ayala live consensually with a non-Chinese convert? Again, if it can be ascertained with statistical data that such"common-law" marriages were common, even among Catholics, how does this affect our understanding of what it means to be "Catholic"? Thus, by pointing out how the marriage practices of these testators seem to go against our contemporary understandings of what it means to be "Chinese" or "Catholic," I am suggesting that these people may have a different understanding of their identities.

R. T.CHU 59 Furthermore, by appropriating or negotiating the policies of different governments and allowing their domestic affairs to be governed by differing laws, they in effect shifted from one identity to another. They may be "Chinese" in one respect, yet "Spanish-Catholic" in another. This same fluidity of their identities also can be seen in the next set of practices that I will be investigating-that of inheritance. According to Chinese customs, sons usually inherited the money or property left behind by their fathers, while daughters did not get anything because they "married out," and thus belonged to other families (Bernhardt, 1999:9-46). Moreover, in cases when a man had two wives-a primary one and a concubine-sons of the former were usually favored over sons of the latter. They commonly received twice the amount of the inheritance left to the sons of the concubine, unless the latter were exceptionally capable or socially distinguished, in which case they got an equal share of the inherit­ ance (Chen, 1940: 130; Freedman, 1966:51). But in the case of "el chino cristiano" Lucio Ysabelo Limpangco, he followed Spanish Civil Code law which required that all children of the testator be given an equal share of the inheritance." Thus, in his will drawn up in 1895, he bequeathed two-thirds of his goods - to be equally divided among them- to all his "legitimate children," i.e., his five children from his first wife Chu-Cua," whom he married in China, and his two children from his second (and deceased) wife Francisca Cinco, whom he married in Manila." Furthermore, although one of his two children with Francisca was female, he still provided her with an equal share of the inheritance. In the case of Jose Chio Taysan, a native of Leonque in China, who at 75 years old drew up a will on March 23, 1895 (RMAO, PM 1895, 561, 1), he even named as executor of his will his only daughter and only heir Silvina Chio-Taysan, who was at that time, still of minor age. In China, this giving 'of the entire inheritance to a daughter would have been quite uncommon, since, not only did a daughter not inherit anything except a dowry, but also in the absence of a male heir, her widowed mother was supposed to name and adopt a male heir from the patrilineal clan (see Bernhardt, 1999: 44, 62-65). Instead, in his will Jose also stipulated that should, at the time of his death, Silvina still be of minor age, his wife Avelina

60 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-QP-THE-TWENTIElH-eENTURY MANILA Caballero would become the executor. Thus, in this case not only was the daughter empowered, but so was the mother. The same empowerment was granted to Sy Quieng, the wife of another testator named Go-Quia-co. On November 23,1900, Quia­ co drew up a will in which he stated that he was married to Sy Quieng and that they had three children: Go-Chongco (23 years old and living in China); Go-Chawco (18 and living with Quia-co in Manila); and Go-Chuyco (13 and living in China) (RMAO, PM 1900, 829, 7). Although he declared his three children as his heirs who would inherit his goods in equal parts, he named as tutor of his children, and as executor of his will in China, his wife Sy Quieng." Thus, in granting their wives some power over their inheritance, both Jose and Quia-co departed from the customary practice in China, which often appointed men from the lineage or from the village to oversee the division of the property of a deceased person (Huang, 1996:27).28 What also is interesting in Quia-eo's case is that he used Spanish civil law to dictate the stipulations of his inheritance, when his marriage was contracted in China! "Chinese"? "Spanish"? "Catholic"? If we were to judge these people by their actions, we would not be able to really pin their behavior down on any single category. Baptized as a "Catholic," Lucio followed Spanish policies when it came to dividing his in­ heritance. Yet, it must be pointed out that he still followed Chinese custom which dictated that children of concubines or second wives "belonged" to the primary wife by sending his two mestizo children­ Fernando and Maria Angeles, whose mestiza mother had died - to China to be placed under the care of Chu-Cua, his first wife." Though "Chinese," Quia-co did not follow the Chinese customary law of discriminating against daughters or wives in the partition of his wealth. Similarly, Jose, a "Chinese" from the perspective of legal classification, followed "Spanish" civil law in the dispensation of his own wealth. On the other hand, Federico R. Correa Lao-Sarna, though Catholic, followed Chinese customs in dividing his property. He gave one half of his entire inheritance (including all his goods, shares, and rights) to his wife Gregoria Espejo and their three minor

R.T.CHU 61 children, and the other half to his"other legitimate son" Lao-Tian­ Chiao." who was of major age and living in Manila. He married Gregoria under Catholic rites and presumably he married his first wife in China. In this case, instead of dividing his inheritance equally among all his children, he chose to give more to his first wife's son, as it was practiced in China." Similarly, Mariano Chuachengco, married to two wornerr" in China with whom he had a total of thirteen children, but a Catholic convert, divided his numerous assets" only among his male child­ ren. He declared that according to the laws of his nation in which he contracted these two marriages, daughters did not receive any rights to the inheritance, since they would eventually be married OUt.34 Instead, the four daughters would only receive a "valuable gift" (regalo de importancia) .from their mother (RMAO, PM 1901. 877,1).35 Another testator Sy Tiong-Tay, who married his first wife Chan Sinin in China, also claimed that upon Sinin's death in 1883, their conjugal property was not liquidated. He states that the reason was that"their society never existed since such society is a consequence of the contract of marriage celebrated under Spanish laws, (and) that their wedding was celebrated under the laws of China which do not recognize such society" (RMAO, PM 1895, 871,12). Thus, Tiong­ Tay argues that during his first marriage all the assets were of his legitimate and exclusive property without any obligation of dividing them when his marriage with Sinin was dissolved upon the death of the latter. Furthermore, as regards his second wife Ana Cuangsi, Tiong-Tay states that their conjugal property could only be counted from the time he applied for naturalization on December 25, 1891, and not from the date when he married her in Catholic rites on September : 2, 1891, when both of them were still of Chinese nationality. But since their marriage was performed under Catholic rites, their union was not subjected to the laws of China either. Thus, in this line of reasoning Ana Cuangsi still deserved a share in the conjugal property, but only counting those acquired from the day of Tiong-Tay's naturalization up to the time of his death. Incidentally, in recognition of Articles 835, 838, and 839 of the Civil Code, she also inheriteda portion of her deceased husband's assets."

62 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA Thus, like the other "Chinese" testators, Federico, Mariano and Tiong-Tay, though Catholics-and in the case of Tiong-Tay, a Spanish subject- still followed Chinese customs or practices. In doing so, we can not pin down their identities to any single category. As for the only female testator among the cases included here, mestiza Ana Sy-Yap y Cobonjua" instituted as heirs her sister Manuela, and her nephews Gregorio, Agapito, and Julian-all of whom were identified as Christians, and sons of her deceased brother Mariano. The minor Gregorio was living in Manila, while the two older sons were in China. She also wrote in her testament that five Gregorian masses be celebrated upon her death, and that a donation of thirty pesos be given each to the Churches of Binondo, San Francisco, San Ignacio de Loyola, and Capuchina y Paules. Here is an example of a mestiza who was clearly a devout Catholic woman, loyal to her Catholic faith, but yet had strong ties to China. Akin to the "Chinese" testators, Ana can not be solely tagged as a "mestiza," as Wickberg has defined it. In maintaining close ties to her mestizo nephews and kin in China, she could as well have considered herself also "Chinese." Thus, in all these examples what I have tried to show is that, if we were to look at the specific familial practices of these Chinese and mestizo individuals and families, we will be able to take a different view of their identities: their identities were not rigid, fixed, or unidimensional. These people were able to play simul­ taneous identities by appropriating and negotiating the different ethno­ religious classifications and practices that they had access to. They could be "chino," "sangley," "mestizo," "Catholic," or "infiel" - at least in so far as their practices reflected - all at the same time or at different times, depending on the given situation. Unlike the ethnic classifications used by the colonial governments in categorizing people, ethnic identities, once viewed from the perspective of people's lives and practices, also are multiple and fluid. To demonstrate how this fluidity of identities could have ha ppened in the life of a "Chinese" or "mestizo" in Manila during the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century, I would like to present the lives of father and son Joaquin and Mariano Limjap.

R.T.eHu 63 Joaquin and Mariano Limjap: Chinese? Mestizo? Filipino? Spaniard? Joaquin Limjap was born in 1832, in a county called Tongshan, in province." His Chinese name was Lim Cong [ap, but upon his baptism he changed his name to Joaquin Barrera Limjap. Little is known about his early life, except that he was brought to Manila by a British trader, and that he worked for him for a while." He began his business giving crop loans on agricultural products that were much in demand for export. Later on, he became a merchant engaged in the business and established the Siu Liong & CO.40 Joaquin Limjap married Policarpia Nolasco (b. 1831-d. January 9, 1875), a mestiza of Binondo, and had three sons with her. After the death of Policarpia, Joaquin applied to marry Vicenta Hong Ong in Catholic rites on August 8, 1876 (see AAM, 1M 1875-1876). Whether this marriage application was granted and if ever they had children are not yet known to this author. As with many of his contemporary merchants, Joaquin often returned to China,41 where he owned a house in Culangyu.? He died in China on January 31, 1888 at the age of 56, and was buried in Gulangyu, although later on his bones were brought to Manila and reinterred at the Limjap Chapel, North Cemetery (Boncan y Limjap, 1998: 16). It was reported that when he died he left "some one hundred thousand pesos worth of properties and assets" (Manuel, 1955:248). During his lifetime, Joaquin was active in many philantrophic activities. He founded the Chinese Charitable Association in 1877 and became one of its directors." Thus, he was a well-recognized leader of the Chinese community in the Philippines. When an attempt was made to establish a Chinese consulate in Manila, he was one of the four Chinese merchant leaders who went to Hong Kong in 1886 to petition this request (Wickberg, 2000:215-216).44 However, it must be pointed out that, even as he had very close ties with China, Joaquin had, as early as 1881, already become a Spanish subject." In fact, others who had played a leading role in cultivating closer ties to China such as Carlos Palanca Tan Quien­ sien also garnered titles and ranks either purchased from or awarded by the Qing government in China while at the same time

64 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-CENTURY MANILA earning awards from the Spanish colonial government for their loyalty to the Spanish crown. In explaining how it was possible for these people like Joaquin to possess simultaneous political loyalties and identities, Wilson writes that these people never conceived themselves yet as part of a nation, i.e. as part of a "territorial and legal institution with authority and responsibilities, and to which they/ as citizens, had binding obligation" (1998:174). Instead, they saw themselves, even as they had become Spanish subjects, as also subjects of a Chinese empire that was territorially boundless, mainly cultu,rally determined, and which derived its fundamental authority from its mission to morally transform the world. The local Chinese elite also saw no inherent contradiction in the idea that a Chinese cabecilla could serve both the Qing and the Spanish empires, and could appeal to each on a situational basis. This is evident in the fact that many of the cabecillas that appealed to Beijing were also Catholic Spanish subjects. The socio-economic environment and Spanish policy encouraged them to conceive of themselves as a distinct cultural minority and both governments offered the institutions to reinforce that identity, but this did not prevent them from seeking alliances with both sets of political power-holders (Wilson/1998:174). Thus, we can say that this strategy of owing simultaneous political loyalties to different empires was a precursor of the "flexible citizenship" strategy that modern Chinese transnationals practice today in dealing with uncertainties brought about by political instabilities in their countries and by the burgeoning globalization (see Ong, 1993 and 1999).46 More importantly, it shows us that these "Chinese" who made use of this "border-crossing" strategy can be considered both as "Chinese" and "Spanish." Consequently, this helps us break down our view of the "Chinese" as a fixed, rigid, and unchanging category. As to their mestizo offspring, the same thing can be said as seen in the life of Mariano Limjap.

R.T.CHU 65 Mariano, the eldest son of Joaquin, was born in Manila on October 19, 1856.47 When Joaquin died in 1888, his business was absorbed by Yek Tok Lin & Co. But in February or March of that same year Mariano established a business of his own, called Limjap y Cia, which was an import and export business." He also had various business interests in San Miguel Brewery, the Manila Jockey Club, Hong Kong & Banking Corporation, and other companies. He was a well-known figure in both the Chinese and mestizo communities, and was once cabeza as well as gobernadorcillo of the mestizos of Binondo." For all his participation in various socio-civic activities, the Spanish government awarded him with the distinction of Caballero de la Real Orden Americana de Isabella Cat6lica. In 1893, he traveled to Europe with his wife. Mariano also participated in the Revolution against the Spaniards by financing the movement. He was one of the financiers of La Liga Filipina." He was arrested on September 16, 1896 upon suspicion of complicity in the Revolution of August 1896,51 but was released on March 29, 1897. In 1898, the Revolutionary movement called him to be an adviser on financial matters, and along with Pedro A. Paterno and Telesforo Chiudian, to head the Republic's financing group. Together, they authorized the signing of paper bills issued by the Republic.P He also helped found on November 6, 1898 the Club Filipino Independiente." In 1899, he served in the Revolutionary Congress in Tarlac. When the American forces caught up with the officials of the Republic inPangasinan," Limjap was brought to Manila, where he was imprisoned and later released (Manuel, 1955:249; Boncan y Limjap, 1998:38-40). During the American colonial period, his business interests turned to real estate, building houses for rent in Manila. He branched out to other towns and vacation centers, while establishing other businesses and buying shares in various companies such as the Compania de Seguros de Filipinas, Tayabas Sawmill & Co., La Perla, Inc. He was also elected one of the directors of the Bank of the Philippine Islands. As with his father, he was active in philantrophic activities, and served on the Rizal Monument Commission (Boncan y Limjap, 1998:29-30).

66 "CHINESE" IDENTITIESAT THETURN-OF-THE-l'wENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA Mariano Limjap had two children by his first wife Dona Juana Siaosingco (b. 1858 - d. February 23, 1885) and seven with his second wife Maria Escolar y Cochay (b, March 25, 1865-d. April 7, 1941), whom he married on May 2, 1886. 55 He died on March 4, 1926. Mariano's case deserves special attention in our discussion of ethnic identities because many scholars and writers tend to view him as a "Chinese mestizo" (see for example Wickberg, 2000:87). As stated above, he was once the gobernadorcillo of the mestizos of Binondo." But while it is true that from the government's point of view he was a mestizo, I am going to argue that he was just as comfortable and at ease with his "Chinese" identity as he was of his mestizo or other identities. He also shifted these identities as the situation dictated. I will prove my point by describing certain events in his life. . The first involves the charge of estafa (swindling) against him in. 1891. According to the plaintiff Adriano Marcelo, who was a resident of , Mariano's father Joaquin had granted him the power to represent the business tycoon in his businesses in the said province. On February 15, 1885, Adriano was supposed to have earned an amount of seven thousand four hundred sixty six (7,466) .pesos as commission. But instead of collecting the amount, he asked Joaquin Limjap to deposit the money with the Hong Kong-Shanghai Bank. Adriano had produced several correspondences between himself and Joaquin referring to this matter. However, Mariano, being the designated executor of his father's will, contested Adriano's claim, leading Adriano to charge him with estafa since he refused to turn over the money Adriano claimed to be his." One of the documents Mariano Limjap submitted to the Court of the First Instance of Binondo where the case was being tried was a notarized record of him also being authorized to represent his father in the latter's businesses in Iloilo. In this document, Mariano classi­ fied himself as a "mestizo espaiiol," Thus, he was later on ridiculed by the lawyer of Adriano for having the"audacity" to call himself as such, when, according to the lawyer, "his face tells us that he is of pure Chinese blood, his father Don Joaquin Limjap being pure

R.T.CHU 67 Chinese, and his mother being mestiza Chinese." And he went on to argue that this constituted a crime under the Penal Code. The reason why the lawyer included this matter in his testimony was to argue for the duplicitous nature of Mariano Limjap. However, if we were to follow Spanish law, a son took after the ethnic classification of his father. In this case, Mariano was simply following his father's classification, since Joaquin Limjap had himself naturalized as a Spanish subject. Moreover, Mariano probably did not feel ill at ease at all to call himself a "mestizo espaiiol," Since mestizo could refer to both mestizo sangley and mestizo espaiiol, the qualifiers "sangley" or "espaiiol" could have been, to him, easily interchanged." But even while he was certainly comfortable being part of the mestizo community - being able to speak Spanish as attested by other documents at the Archives" - Mariano would just have as easily been at ease with the Chinese community. Partly due to his father's business connections, and partly due to his own, Mariano had extensive dealings with other Chinese merchants in Binondo. He was said to have helped Cu-Un-Iieng, a Chinese whose testament I had discussed in the previous section, and who later on became a prominent businessman and the first president of the Manila Chinese Commercial Council (later the Manila Chinese General Chamber of Commerce), start his own business. A document from 1900 also shows that he and his brother donated some money to their relatives in China, as directed by their father Joaquin in his will." While there has been no documentary evidence to the fact, I believe that Mariano was also fluent in Hokkien, having grown up in Binondo and surrounded by his father's kin and business associates, whom he himself would be dealing with or entering into business partnerships 'in his adult life.61 In fact, a sure sign of his identification with the Chinese commu­ nity can be seen from the incident involving the arrival of the Chinese cruiser Hai-ch'i on November 8, 1907. In it was H.E. Yang Shih-ch'i, who carried the title of Junior Vice President of the Board of Agriculture, Works.vand Commerce of China, as well as of Imperial Commissioner (MT, November 6, 1907; see also Tan, 1972:110). According to newspaper reports, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce gave the Chinese official and his entourage a "brilliant reception," This reception, not quite coincidentally, was held at one of the most

68 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-0F-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA prominent "Chinese" businessmen of that time: Mariano Limjap. The front-page article states: All the prominent Chinese residents of the city were present, to receive the royal commissioner and the officers of the cruiser Hai Chi....Major Robert H. Noble presented to the distinguished visitors the hundreds who called to pay their respects. In the receiving line were Consul General Su Yu Tchu, Ho. H.E. Yang Shih Chi, Mrs. Limjap, Taotai Mue Yew Chung, Commodore Shin, and the President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Manila." (MT, November 14, 1907) Furthermore, just exactly eight days before this reception, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce also hosted a "splendid reception at Mariano Limjap's" to honor Secretary and Mrs. William H. Taft (CA, November 6, 1907). The title of the article was "Chinese Hosts." The article states that the Chinese consul general and the leading "Chinamen" in the city honored the Tafts. Among the "Chinamen" were "Benito Si Cobieng, the president of the Chinese chamber of commerce; Cu Unjien (sic), the ex-president of the chamber of commerce, and Tan Chu Tee, the instructor in English in the Chinese school." Thus, from these short biographical notes on the lives of Joaquin and Mariano Limjap, we can see that both of them were capable of playing different identities at different points in their lives. Joaquin was both "Chinese"and "Spaniard" in so far as his legal classifi­ cation was concerned, and culturally, he also was both. Similarly, Mariano, though a mestizo, a Spanish subject and later on a "Filipino," he was also "Chinese," in so far as his social practices were concerned.63

Conclusion In the preceding section, I have tried to show how both the "Chinese" and the "mestizos" at the turn of the twentieth-century negotiated their identities, played with them simultaneously as well as segued from one to another. In the case of some of the "Chinese" in this essay, they lived out a "Chinese-ness" that differed from

R.T.CHU 69 what nationalists of today have constructed. Furthermore, others managed to be "Chinese" as well as "Spanish-Catholic" in both their political identities and their cultural practices. As for the mestizos, the examples of Ana Sy-Yap y Gobonjua and Mariano Limjap provide us with an alternative way' of understanding mestizo identity at the turn of the century. As I stated earlier, Wickberg has argued that the mestizos identified themselves more with the native but similarly hispanized and Catholic community, and not with the Chinese community. While this may be true of later-generation mestizos, for many first- or even second-generation mestizos this probably was not the case. Instead, their identities were ambiguous, fluid, and multiple. Thus, intheir flexible strategy of combining Chinese and Spanish­ Catholic cultural practices, in their use of Spanish legal policies to institutionalize Chinese practices, and in their adoption of various identities, these Chinese and their mestizo offspring wielded a kind of power that colludes with the colonial regimes of truth and power. At the same time, they acted "obliquely to them, and systematically set. out to transgress the shifting boundaries set by both" (Ong and Nonini, 1997:20). . In showing that identities before the rise of the Philippine modern nation-state in the twentieth-century also were fluid and often shifting, my study hopes to challenge our present-day view of a universal and long-standing "Chinese-Filipino" binary, and to provide another perspective other than the one used by past studies of.what it means to be a "Chinese," "Catholic," "mestizo," or even "Filipino." But much remains to be done. As I mentioned earlier, due to limitations of time and space, I was not able to collect more case studies of inheritance and marriage practices as well as more family histories in order to further validate my hypotheses. I hope to do this in my continuing research in different archives in the Philippines and the United States. The following are issues or topics that I would like to delve more deeply in my future research: First, I hope to analyze more closely the interplay between the political economy and the way people chose and played with their identities. Following the lead ofOng and Nonini, I hope to investigate '.

70 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-

R.T.euu 71 Fourth, I would like to suggest that we rethink our notion and understanding of when and how this homogenization of "Filipinos" and "Chinese" was supposed to have occurred. My hypothesis is that the reification of these two identities only reached its peak after 1910, i.e., after the founding of the Chinese Republic in 1912 and a few years after the establishment of a Philippine Assembly in 1907. In other words, what I am suggesting is 'that in the first decade of American rule-approximately from 1898 to 1910-even though the mestizos as a legal class had been eradicated back in the 1880s, culturally, they were still in the process of beirig "Filipinized." Thus, I am pushing Wickberg's timetable in the construction of a distinct "Chinese-Filipino" binary from the turn of the century to a later time when the nationalist sentiments and consciousness among the peoples of China and the Philippines reached a high point. By pointing to this possibility I am calling for a re-examination of these crucial first ten years of American colonial rule in order to understand the complex processes involved in the creation and construction of a "Chinese-Filipino" binary. However, we also need to pay attention to how the Chinese and the mestizos, especially those belonging to the first generation, continued to renegotiate the new laws and policies that led to the increasing simplification, nationalization, and reification of their identities.

72 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA NOTES 'For important works regarding the history of the Chinese in the Philippines, the following are recommended: Wickberg, 2000; Felix, [r., 1966 and 1969; Tan, 1972 and 1981; Jensen, 1975. 2For examples of this approach in the study of other Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, see Freedman, 1957; Skinner, 1957; Purcell, 1965; Cushman and Wang, 1988. 3Different interpretations have been given on the origins of the term "sangley." Most scholars, however, seem to subscribe to the theory that the word may have come from the Hokkien word"seng-li" which means "business." See Wickberg, 2000: 9, n. 14.

4Itshould be pointed out that when the term II mestizo" was used in official documents or in popular parlance, it often referred to "mestizo sangley" (Wickberg, 1964:67). And while there were mestizoespaiiol in these cities, they were very few in number. For some statistical data on the number of mestizo espaiiol and Spaniards in the city, one can begin with the vecindarios (tax registers belonging to a district) of Binondo, Sta. Cruz, and Tondo. See RMAO, Vecindarios. 5For more information regarding the procedures that a Chinese convert had to undergo in securing the permission to marry a local woman, see Sugaya, 2000; Bankoff, i992. 6Inearlier records, one often finds the words"infieles" or "cristianos" being appended to "sangleyes." 7Some wealthy Chinese indeed became Spanish subjects. But those who applied for citizenship had to have been a resident of the Philippines for a number of years, with good letters of recommendation from officials, and be baptized. Mestizos and indios, on the other hand, were automatically considered Spanish subjects (Wickberg, 2000:155-156). "This was Ildefonso Tambunting, whom he describes as "one of a very few prominent mestizos who openly identified themselves as Chinese and followed Chinese customs." (1964: 95). It should be noted that he also had applied for Spanish citizenship, as can be deduced from a letter he wrote in 1887 to the Civil Governor of the Philippines asking that he be recognized as being of Spanish nationality. See RMAO, VP, Ildefonso Tambunting.

R.T.CHU 73 "For more information regarding the mestizo population during this period, see Wickberg, 2000:28-29, 134-135. IOThe gremios were a kind of religious and local self-governing corporation. See Wickberg, 2000:19. In 1687, the Gremio de Chinos de Binondo was formed, headed by ten Chinese and five mestizo"capitanes" (captains) or gobernadorcillos. Then, in 1741, a separate gremio for the mestizos, called the Gremio de Mestizos de Binondo, was formed. The indio population ~lso had their own gremio. Thus, in Binondo and ?tt"Cruz, where there were heavy concentrations of Chinese, mestizos,aIjd indios, three gremios co-existed. The function of the head of each gremio was to collect taxes, and to act as the liaison between their own community and the Spanish government in matters such as the establishment and maintenance of peace and order. The process by which the gober­ nadorcillos were elected changed through the course of time, but at all times those who were elected had to have the backing of the local parish priest and the civil governor (Wickberg, 2000:37, 181­ 183, 196). "This book has been reprinted. Its first edition was published in 1965 by the Yale University Press. 12For more information about succeeding laws on citizenship during the American colonial period, see Jensen, 1975:163. .

13As stated in this essay, Filipinos were not considered citizens of the United States but rather citizens of the Philippines. See Fisher, 1947: 15. 14For more information about the notary publics of Manila during the Spanish colonial period, see Division of Customs and Insular Affairs, 1899; Feria, 1912; Flores, 1911. 15As much as I wanted to include more years of the American period in my study, particularly those from 1903-1905, the difficulty of obtaining access to the records of the early 1900's prevented me from doing so. During my research at the RMAO in the summer of 2000, these records were in the process of being transferred from an old repository to a new one, and thus were in disarray. Requests through the RMAO personnel for specific records involving "Chinese" cases produced no results.

74 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-QF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA 16The Civil Code is divided into four Books and the section that deals mainly with the question of inheritance and ownership is found in Book III. 17A royal decree of 1849 required that Chinese men who wished to marry local women had to have been a resident in the islands for at least six years. They also had to have been converts for the last two years; to submit proof of their baptism, their instruction in Christian doctrine as well as their good character before they received the permission. For more information, see Bankoff, 1992. Moreover, in 1892, Archbishop Nozaleda tightened the regulations by requiring the Chinese men to undergo a mandatory catechism period of five years - including a twice weekly instructional visit to their parish priest-before they could be baptized. Furthermore, priests were forbidden to perform marriage ceremonies involving Chinese men without obtaining first the permission from superior authorities. See Tamayo y Pascual, 1906:82-83. "In other documents, her name.is spelled "Jong Sy." But for purposes of consistency, I will use "Ong Sy." 19Church policy dictated that upon application of a marriage license from the Church, the couple should appear before the judge of the provisor's court and declare that they were single and contracted to marry each other, and that no other impediments stood in the way of their marriage. See Sugaya, 2000: 4; Bankoff, 1992:13-14. 2°His two other children with Ana Cuangsi were Manuel (b. 1883) and Justina (b. 1886). 21For instance, it is stipulated in Article 131 of the Spanish Civil Code that a "natural child," that is, a child born out of wedlock of parents who are free to marry at the time of the conception of the child, can only be acknowledged by a record of his/her birth, in a will, or in some other public document. 22As mentioned in an earlier footnote, a decree was promulgated in 1892 requiring that Chinese men who wished to marry indias or mestizos must not only first be baptized but also be a Spanish citizen. Among the requirements in becoming a citizen include being a resident of the Philippines for a number of years, the possession of good conduct, letters of reference from a half dozen officials as well as

R.T.CHU 75 being baptized. However, Wickberg also writes that it is not clear whether this provision was ever put into effect. See Wickberg, 2000: 156. In regards to marrying Ana a few months before he died, and then applying for Spanish citizenship later on, my hunch is that Tiong-Tay married Ana in order to meet the criterion of possessing "good conduct." Cohabiting with another without the sanction of Church marriage could have constituted a ground for the Spanish government to refuse him naturalization, as was the case during the American colonial period. See Coppel, 1974:80. 23What this calamity was is still to be researched on. 24Article 808 of the Spanish Civil Code states that "The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of two-thirds of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother...." 25Nothing was mentioned of the whereabouts of this other wife (RMAO, PM 1895. 561, 4). 26His children from his first wife include: Bung [uy ("mayor de edad"; age undetermined); Bun-Chay (b. 1879); Bun-lin (b. 1883); Bun-Lee (b. 1884); Bun-Chin (b. 1888); and from his second wife: Fernando (b. 1885) and Maria Angeles (b. 1889), both of whom were sent to China to study. 27To look after his good and to oversee the execution of his willin Manila, Quia-co named Mariano Velasco Chuachengco. 28Widows in the Qing dynasty legally did not inherit any property but had the right to choose a legal heir in case she was childless. She also maintained custodial powers over heirs below legal age. See Bernhardt, 1999:48, 62;74; Huang, 1996:55-56. 29It is not clear however from the 'testament whether they were sent to China before or after their mother died. Furthermore, I hope to study further how these mestizo children who were sent to China identify themselves afterwards, especially upon return to the Philippines. "Based on his Chinese-sounding name, I presume that Tian­ Chiao's mother was from China. On the other hand, the children of Gregoria were named Ramon, Maria Salud, and Cenon. See RMAO, PM 1899, 875, 10.

76 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-DF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA 31What could be the reason for his decision to give more to his son by his first marriage? Apart from merely following Chinese customs of giving more to the children of the first wife, could there have been other reasons? One reason could be that he deemed Lao Tian-Chiao, who was already of major age and also assigned third executor of his will, to have more need of the money to carry out his responsibilities as first son, which might have included running the business Federico would have left behind. 32He married Sy Sacia in accordance with the "rites of his nation," and with whom he had four male adult children at the time of the writing of his will, and later on married Maria Consolacion Ang Quinio, with whom he had nine children. See RMAO, PM 1901, 877, 1. 33Some of his assets included three buildings, six warehouses, fourteen houses, and shares or stocks in different companies. See RMAO, PM 1901, 877, 1. 34Freedman writes that once married, a woman has no further economic claims on her natal family, who will begin to treat her "as a kind of guest" (1958:31). 35It is unclear however where Maria Consolacion and their child­ ren were residing, although it was not uncommon for the Chinese to bring their mestiza or india wives and mestizo children to China. Also, it is interesting to note that of their nine children, two had solely Chinese names (Chua locchiong and Chua Ticaoco) while the seven others had Western or Catholic names added to their Chinese names (Pedro Velasco Chua Chengco, Jose Velasco Chua Chengco, Florencia Velasco Chua Chengco, Maria Concepcion Velasco Chua Chengco, Francisca Velasco Chua Chengco, Rita Chua Chengco and Damiana Chua Chengco). It is possible that Chua locchiong and Chua Ticaoco were born in China, and that the rest in Manila, and presumably baptized in Catholic rites. I am currently investigating the practice of giving children different names and surnames as a creative and adaptive strategy of Chinese diasporic subject in dealing with immigration policies. 36See also Fisher, 1947:316-317. Article 835 states that "The hereditary portion allotted in usufruct to the widowed spouse must be taken from the third of the estate available for the betterment of the children." Article 839: "In case of the survival of children of

R. T.CHU 77 two or more marriages, the usufruct pertaining to the widowed spouse of the second marriage shall be taken form the third at the free disposal of the parents." Article 838: "The usufructuary rights of the surviving spouse may be satisfied by the settlement upon him or her by the heirs of a life annuity or the income from some specific property, or by the payment of money, as may be determined by agreement between the parties, or, in default of such agreement, by judicial decision." 37At the time she drew up her will, Ana was single, thirty-three years of age. See RMAO, PM 1985, 306, 2. 38SeeBoncan y Limjap (1998: 6) for photo of his tombstone. 391 obtained this information from my telephone conversation with Raul Boncan y Limjap, April 24, 2000. 4°Other business ventures include providing marine insurance and participating in the tobacco business. See Boncan y Limjap, 1998:14. 41ln a dispute involving the inheritance of a relative Fernando Calderon Lim Tonjin, of which he was named executor, Joaquin Limjap had asked the alcalde mayor during the latter part of the case to give his sign of approval of the estimation of the goods of his kinsman. The reason for this request was that he (Limjap) was going to leave for China soon. This case started in May of 1859 and was not resolved until November 1860. See RMA'O, BD 1858-1894, 13. 42A small island across Xiarnen, Fujian Province. Gulangyu was where many of the consulates and residences of foreigners were located at the turn of the twentieth century. 431 obtained this information from Raul Boncan y Limjap, in an e-mail communication dated Dec. q, 2000. 44The other three were Yap Liong-quin (who may be Franciso Manzano Yap-Tico or Antonio Yap Caong), Tan Chuey-liong or Tan Quien-sien, and Co Chi-lui (who may be Federico Co Sequieng or Juan Lecaros Co-Lico). See Wickberg,2000:215-216. 45As pointed out earlier in this paper, the Spanish government in 1840 had made it possible for the Chinese to become subjects. 1do not '~ have the exact date when Joaquin Limjap applied for naturalization,

78 "CmNESE" IDENTITIESAT lHE TURN-oF-lHE-'fwENTIElH-eENTURY MANILA but in a document dated April 23, 1881, he was already identified as a Spanish subject. See RMAO, Mariano Limjap. 461n her works (1993 and 1999), Ong examines the phenomenon of people in Hong Kong as well as the overseas Chinese in post­ colonial societies, who are capable of obtaining passports or citizenship in several nation-states as a strategy for survival and economic advantage, or strategies to "accumulate capital and power," of complex adjustments and accommodations, in the light of the shifting relations between the nation-state and the global economy in late modernity. The result has been the creation of "multiply displaced subjects" whose identities can not be tied down to one particular national identity. 47His two other brothers were Jacinto (Aug. 30, 1865-December 7, 1823) and Apolonio (February 9, 1869-November 23, 1889). 48For further information about Limjap's marine insurance firm and his connections with Hongkong-based insurance firms, see Wickberg, 2000:87. 491n Lim, 1930: 249, it is written that he was a cabeza and gobernadorcillo of the Chinese in Binondo. However, I dispute this information, as borne out by my own archival research. See, for example, RMAO, VP: Mariano Limjap 1820-1895, Legajo 40, in which a document dating to 1889 and pertaining to Bonifacio Cobarrubias' case states that Mariano was gobernadorcillo of the mestizos. Likewise, he was listed as cabeza of the barangay number 16 in Binondo in the year 1875. See RMAO,V, Binondo 1871-1898. 50La Liga Filipina was founded by Jose Rizal in 1892, and its members frequently met at the house of a Chinese named Doroteo Ongjunco in Binondo. See Boncan y Limjap, 1998:34. 511n one of the documents at the RMAO, Mariano Limjap requested to purchase some arms. Whether these were used to aid the revolutionary movement is unclear. See RMAO, Mariano Limjap: 520ne of the roles he assumed was Inspector General of the Railroad. 530ther founders included Telesforo Chuidian, Dr. Jose Albert, Bonifacio Arevalo, Antonio Luna, Jose Luna, Juan Luna, and Maximino Paterno.

R.T.eHu 79 54Boncan y Limjap writes that"some sources" state that he was captured in Tarlac, however, he does not identify what these sources are (1998:42). 55His children by his first wife were Mariano Jr. or Marianito and Gregorio (November 28, 1885-April 5, 1953f The children by his second wife were Leonarda, Jose, Esperanza Pacencia, Franciso, Felisa, and Pedro who married Catalina/Neny Apacible. See Manuel, 1955: 248-250; Boncan y Limjap, 1998:5. 56Further research is needed for more details about his tenure as gobernadorcillo of the mestizos. But a good starting point would be to look at the vecindarios of Binondo found at the RMAO. 57For more details regarding this case, see RMAO, Mariano Limjap. 58What was the reason for Mariano to have used such a classification? Unfortunately, I can not find any rebuttalor reference to this matter beyond what I have just mentioned. I believe that this matter was simply dismissed by the judge since Mariano was legally a "mestizo espaiiol:" 590ne such document is the testament of Cu-Unjieng, in which Mariano is listed as a witness, and as' capable of understanding and speaking Spanish. See RMAO, PM 1901, 830, 3. 6°ln 1900, Mariano and Jacinto Limjap y Nolasco appeared before .the. notary Genaro Heredia to donate the sum of three thousand pesos (3,000) to. three different "Chinos": Antonio Lim-Siong-Chit, Francisco Lim Siong Cang and Lim Siong Que. According to the notarized document, they were"obliged" under the will of their father to donate this sum to their kinsmen in order to alleviate their poverty, and who, at the time of the notarization of this donation, were in China. Mariano Limjap donated two thousand two hundred pesos while Jacinto Limjap donated eight hundred. See RMAO, PM 1900, 829, 7. 611n fact, I was told by Raul Boncan y Limjap in an e-mail communication that "It is known in the Limjap family that Lolo Mariano spoke Hokkien." Furthermore, Wickberg writes, "Most mestizos spoke the Philippine dialect of the region where they lived. Most did not speak Chinese. Those who had business relations with their Chinese relatives undoubtedly spoke some Chinese. In Manila, a local patois in which Hokkien, , and Tagalog were mixed was spoken by

80 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-oF-THE-"fwENnFTH-CENTURY MANILA many Chinese and also mestizos. It was a kind of lingua franca of the Chinese, not a specifically mestizo patois. Rich mestizos who ostentatiously rejected Chinese culture spoke a Philippine dialect and Spanish" (2000:32). 62Aside from wondering where Mariano Limjap might be seated, one may also ask oneself what Mrs. Limjap might have felt during the occasion. Did she also feel at home with the Chinese community, she being a mestiza Chinese just like her husband? 630ne can also speculate how the Chinese community viewed Mariano Limjap. Looking at the list of past presidents of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, one does not find the name of Mariano Limjap, nor is his name in the list of officers. But no doubt he was well known among the Chinese community. The present-day Chinese community also claims him as one of its own. When one goes to the Heritage Center in , one can find him in the exhibit of prominent Chinese mestizos. Even the 1990 edition of the Dictionary of Overseas Chinese, published in China, lists Mariano Limjap. See Zhou, 1993:472.

j

R. T.CHU 81 REFERENCES

Agoncillo, Teodoro 1974 Filipino Nationalism, 1872-1970. Quezon City: RP. Garcia. Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (rev. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Azcuna, Adolfo 1969 "The Chinese and the Law." In The Chinese in the Philippines, ·1770-1898, Vol. II. Edited by Alfonso Felix Jr. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Bankoff, Greg 1992 In verbo sacerdotis: The Judicial Powers of the Catholic Church in Nineteenth-Century Philippines. Darwin, Australia: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University. Bernhardt, Kathryn 1999 Women and Property in China, 960~1949 . .Stanford: Stanford University Press. Boncan y Limjap, Raul 1998 House of Limjap, Vol. 1. n.p Chan, Sucheng and K. Scott Wong 1998 Claiming America: Constructing Chinese American Identities during the Exclusion Era. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Chen, Ta 1940 Emigrant Communities in South China. New York: Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations. Coppel, Charles A. 1983 Indonesian Chinese in Crisis. Kuala Lumpur; New York: Oxford University Press. 1974 "The Position of the Chinese in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia." In Philippine-Chinese Profile: Essays & Studies. Edited by Charles J. McCarthy. Manila: Pagkakaisa sa Pag­ unlad, Inc. Cushman, Jennifer and Gungwu Wang 1988 Changing Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese Since WorldWar II. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

82 "CHINESE" IDENfITIES AT THE TURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA Division of Customs and Insular Affairs, War Department 1899 The Notarial Laws in Force in thePhilippine Islands, and Appendices RelatingThereto. Washington: Government Printing Office. Eley, G. and R. Suny, eds. 1996 Becoming National: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Felix, Alfonso, Jr. 1966-69 The Chinese in the Philippines. 2 Vols. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Feria, Felicisimo R. 1912 Manual de los Notarios Publicos. Manila: Tip. De Sto. Tomas. Fisher, F.e, trans. 1947 Codigo Civil: The Civil Code of Spain, with Philippine Notes and References. 5th ed. Manila; Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co. Flores, Luis 1911 El Secreta rio delos Notarios Publicos. Manila: Imprenta, Libreria y Papeleria de I.R. Morales. Freedman, Maurice 1966 Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung. London School of Economics, Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 33. London: Humanities Press. 1958 Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. New York: The Athlone Press. 1957 Chinese Family and Marriage in . London: H.M. Stationery Office. Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Rupert 1996 Merchant Princes of the East: Cultural Delusions, Economic Success and theOverseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Huang, Philip 1996 Civil Justice in China: Representation and Practice in the Qing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

R. T.CHU 83 Jensen, Khin Khin Myint Irene 1975 The Chinese in the Philippines during theAmerican Regime, 1898­ 1946. San Francisco: Rand E Research Associates. Leonard, Karen 1992 Making Ethnic Choices: 's Punjabi Mexican Americans. . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lim, Rodrigo 1930 Who's Who in the Philippines. Chinese edition. Manila: University of the Philippines Press. Manuel, Arsenio E. 1955 Dictionary of Philippine Biography. Vol. 1. Quezon City: Filipiniana Publications. Ong, Aihwa 1999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham and London: Duke University Press. ___ and Donald Nonini, eds. 1997 Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism. London and New York: Routledge. 1993 "On the Edge of Empires: Flexible Citizenship Among Chinese in Diaspora," Positions 1 (3): 745-78. Oxfeld, Ellen 1993 Blood, Sweat, and Mahjong. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Purcell, Victor 1965 The Chinese in Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. 1948 The Chinese in Malaya. London: Oxford University Press. Robles, Eliodoro 1969 The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century. Quezon City: Malaya Books Inc. Skinner, G~ William 1996 "Creolized Chinese Societies in Southeast Asia." In Sojourners and Settlers: Histories of Southeast Asia and theChinese. Edited by Anthony Reid. ASAA Southeast Asia Publications Series.

84 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-0F-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA 1959 Local, Ethnic, and National Loyalties in Village Indonesia: A Symposium. New Haven: Yale University, Southeast Asia Studies. 1957 Chinese Society in Thailand: An AnalyticalHistory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Sugaya, Nariko 2000 "Chinese Immigrant Society in the Latter Half of the 18th Century Philippines: Strategy for Survival in Response to Spain's New Chinese Policy." In Intercultural Relations, Cultural Transformation, and Identity. Edited by Teresita Ang See. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. Suryadinata, Leo 1979 Political Thinking of the Indonesian Chinese, 1900-1977: A Sourcebook. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Szanton-Blanc, Cristina 1997 "The Thoroughly Modern "Asian": Capital, Culture, and Nation in Thailand and the Philippines." In Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism. Edited by Aihwa Ong and Donald Nonini. New York and London: Routledge. Tamayo y Pascual, Serapio 1906 Idea General de la Disciplina Eclesiastica en Filipinas durante la Dominacion Espanola. Manila: Establecimiento Tipografico Del Colegio De Santo Tomas. Tan, Antonio 1985 "Chinese Mestizos and the Formation of Filipino Nationality." In Chinese in the Philippines. Edited by Theresa Carino. Manila: De La Salle University. 1981 The Chinese in Manila During the Japanese Occupation 1942-1945. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Asian Center. 1972 The Chinese in the Philippines, 1898-1935: A Study of Their National Awakening. Quezon City: Garcia Publishing Co. Tan, Chee Beng 1988 The Baba of Melaka : Culture and Identity of a Chinese Peranakan Community in Malaysia. Petaling [aya, Selangor: Pelanduk Publications.

R. T.CHU 85 U.S. Philippine Commission 1899-1900 1900-1901. Report of the Philippine Commission to the President. 4 Vols. Washington: Government Printing Office. Wickberg, Edgar Bernard 2000 The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898. Reprint. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Original edition, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. 1997 "Anti-Sinicismand Chinese Identity Options in the Philippines." In Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the' Modern Transformation of Southeast Asia and Central Europe. Edited by Daniel Chirot and Anthony Reid. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. 1964 "The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History," Journal of South­ east Asian History 5 (1):62-100.. Wiley, Samuel R. n.d. "The History of Marriage Legislation in the Philippines." In Marriage and Family in the Modern Philippines: Readings. Parts II and III. Edited by Josephine c. Caluag and Samuel R. Wiley. n.p. Wilkes, Charles et. a1. 1974 . In Travel Accounts of the Islands (1832-1858). Edited by Lafond de Lurcy et a1. Manila: Filipiniana Book Guild. Williams, Lea E. 1960 Overseas Chinese Nationalism: The Genesis of the Pan-Chinese Movement in Indonesia: 1900-1916. Illinois: The Free Press. Willmott, Donald 1956 The National Status of the Chinese in Indonesia. Interim Report Series. New York: Cornell University Wilson, Andrew R. 1998 "Ambition and Identity: China and the Chinese in the Colonial. Philippines." Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Wong, Kwok-chu . 1994 "The Chinese in the Philippine Economy, 1898-1941: A Study of Their Business Achievements and Limitations." Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.

86 ."CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA Zhou Nanjing 1993 Shijie huaqiao huaren cidian (Dictionary of Overseas Chinese). Beijing University Publishing Co.

Unpublished Documents from theRecord Management andArchives Office (RMAO), Manila BN=Bienes de Difuntos 1858-1894, Bundle 13 NE=Naturalizaci6n de Estrangeros PM=Protocolo de Manila 1895, Bundle 871, Torno 12 Bundle 561, Torno 1, 4 Bundle 306, Torno 2 1899, Bundle 875, Torno 10 1900, Bundle 829, Torno 7 1901, Bundle 877, Torno 1 1901, Bundle 830, Torno 3 VP=Varias Personajes (classified under "personnel, distinguished") Mariano Limjap 1820-1895, Legajo 40 (in folders) Mariano Limjap Ildefonso Tambunting V=Vecindarios Binondo 1871-1898 Sta. Cruz Tondo

Unpublished Documents from theArchives oftheArchdiocese ofManila (AAM), Manila IM=Informaciones Matrimoniales 1875-1876

Newspapers MT=The Manila Times, November 6,1907; November 14, 1907 CA=Cablenews American, November 6, 1907

R.T.Cuu 87