32. The Ifugao’s classification of properties.—The Ifugao clearly distinguishes between two classes of property. His language, and indeed his thought, is very poor in abstractions, however, and he bases his classification upon the difference in the method of transferring property by sale. The one class he calls ma-ibuy, “that for whose transfer by sale an ibuy ceremony is necessary”; and the other, adi ma-ibuy, “that for whose transfer by sale an ibuy ceremony is not necessary.” Classifying them upon their essential differences in status in Ifugao law and culture, I term the former family property and the latter personal property.

33. The Ifugao attitude toward family property.—Family properties consist of rice lands, forest lands, and heirlooms. The Ifugao attitude is that lands and articles of value that have been handed down from generation to generation cannot be the property of any individual. Present holders possess only a transient and fleeting possession, or better, occupation, insignificant in duration in comparison with the decades and perhaps centuries that have usually elapsed since the field or heirloom came into the possession of the family. Their possession is more of the nature of a trust than an absolute ownership—a holding in trust for future generations.

It is a misfortune when family property that has long been in the possession of a family must be sold out of it. But if it be sold to a member of another branch of the same family, the misfortune is accounted less in proportion to the nearness of the kinship. However, the rights of the living and of the ancestors departed, are greater than the rights of the unborn. Consequently, a field may properly be sold and so depart from the family, if it be in order to provide animals to accompany the spirit of a deceased ancestor to the spirit world, or in order to provide animals for sacrifices to secure the recovery from dangerous sickness of some member of the family. Inherited property, however, is not to be disposed of without exhausting every effort to keep it within the family. Nor must it ever be disposed of for light or trivial reasons. Except when sold to satisfy the needs of the departed or living (in these cases, a forced sale) family properties when sold bring exorbitant prices. Fields or other properties which have been recently acquired or constructed, sell at considerably lower prices, even though their intrinsic value be the same.

Nothing that I know of in the Ifugao make-up, is so characteristically oriental as is this subordination of individual to family rights.

34. Rice lands.—A “field” consists of all the contiguous paddies in one place that are the property of one man. In sales and in transfers arising out of family relationship, and in balal (pawning), a field is never divided. If there be two heirs and only one field to be inherited, the elder of the heirs takes the entire field. The reason for this and for the rights of primogeniture (see sec. 53) in inheritance and assignment of property, is to be found in the fact that the Ifugao social consciousness considers it better—and it is better—that a family have at least one powerful member round whom the kin may rally and to whom they may look for aid, than that the family property be split into insignificant parcels that would affect but little the property of all. Aside from this consideration there is also the practical difficulty of dividing a field. In the process of dividing, the family unity—which is the dearest and most necessary thing in Ifugao society—would probably be destroyed by quarrels and squabbles. Even if an equitable division could be arranged, a great deal of the field would be taken up in dikes and division lines. It is a rare thing to find an Ifugao rice field as large as one acre in extent.

There is no formal recognition of the eldest as the head of the family. But together with the lion’s share of the property, the first-born inherits certain well defined and rather stringent obligations. In this we seem to have the savor of a system of patriarchy.

35. Forest lands.—Such lands, valuable principally because of the woods upon them, are often the common property of a group of kinsmen and their families. They are sometimes partitioned. They are nearly sure to be partitioned if wood be scarce, or if part of the land be suitable for rice fields.

36. Heirlooms.—Heirlooms consist of such articles as gold neck-ornaments (intrinsic value of the gold being about 10 pesos to 20 pesos; current price among the Ifugaos, 60 pesos to 120 pesos); gongs (value 8 pesos to 250 pesos); rice-wine jars (value 60 pesos to 400 pesos); pango, or strings of amber colored glass beads (value 80 pesos to 160 pesos); and bungol, long strings of agates and bloodstones which are very rarely sold (value about 250 pesos). These articles are used fully as much by the owner’s kin as by the owner himself; for they wear the beads and ornaments, play the gongs in feasts, and brew rice wines in the jars.

37. Sale of family property.—The selling of rice fields, forest lands, gold neck-ornaments, rice-wine jars, and the like is a matter of practical concern to the entire family. Selling them, except in cases of necessity and after consultation with the kin, would lead to ill feeling toward the seller on the part of his kin, and a refusal to assist and back him. Since there is no form of political government in Ifugao culture, and since every man must, with the help of his kin, “get his own justice,” this would be no small punishment. How serious a punishment it would be, the reader will, perhaps, realize when he reads the chapter on procedure.

The sale of family property is registered by ceremonies in which the near kin of both buyer and seller take part. In comparison with the solemnity of these transfers, our real estate transfers are commonplace. In comparison with their complexity, our transfers are simplicity itself.

38. Definition.—Such articles as knives, spears, dishes, baskets, pots, houses, camote fields, fruit-bearing trees, blankets, animals and articles of minor value, are on the same legal basis as personal property among ourselves. Three items in this list demand special attention: houses, valuable trees, and sweet potato fields.

39. Houses.—Dwellings are movable property in Ifugao. A man, with the aid of his kinsmen can, and frequently does, take a house to pieces, move it to a different site and set it up again before sunset. The plot on which a house stands has no value. The value of a house is usually about ten pesos, the range of prices being from six to sixty pesos.

40. Valuable trees.—Cocoanut trees, coffee trees, and areca palms are sold without any sale or transfer of the land on which they stand. The value of a cocoanut tree in full bearing is five pesos; of a coffee tree, one to two pesos; of an areca palm one-half peso. As a rule, the land on which these trees stand has no value. A practice presenting parallel features that leads one to believe that the same manner of selling trees must have prevailed among the Pangasinanes, one of the Christian tribes, is that, in the sale of the cocoanut groves in central Pangasinan, the trees are sold at so much apiece; but in order to get possession of the trees, it is necessary to buy the land at so much a hectare, since the land has a value.

Camote or sweet potato fields are discussed in section 45.

No ceremonials are involved in the transfer of personal property; nor are witnesses necessary, as a general thing.

Tenure is either perpetual or transient.

41. Rice and forest lands.—Rice-land and forest-land tenures are perpetual.

In case an owner abandons a rice field for any period of time, however long, and another man takes up the field without interference or contrary order of the true owner, clears it of underbrush, builds up the broken dikes, levels once more the terraces, tills and plants it, the latter has the right to use the field for the same number of years that it was abandoned. At the end of this time, the field reverts to the true owner. Should the owner desire possession of his field before the expiration of the time, for which, in accordance with this rule, the field should remain in the possession of him who redeemed it from the wild mountain side, he must repurchase possession.

It is not incumbent on a man to secure permission of the owner of an abandoned field before working it; it is incumbent on the owner to prevent others from working his field against his will.

In the event a rice field is made on privately owned forest lands from which the timber has long been cut, the owner of the land, when he has proved title, demands payment for the land. But he may not take advantage of the labor that the other has spent on the land in making rice fields, to demand an exorbitant payment. To take such a course would invite danger to himself.

Forest lands that have been divested of their wood may be planted in camotes (sweet potatoes) by any person without asking the consent of the owner. If the owner does not want his land so planted or intends to use it himself, it is his business to inform any who may have started to work the land. But if he is tardy in making this prohibition, he must pay for the labor expended, or must allow the continuance of the work, and the harvesting of one crop of camotes from the land. I am not certain that this is the case in all parts of Ifugao.

42. “Homesteading.”—That land which is not rice fields or forest land and which is not owned by some individual by reason of its having been one or the other formerly, becomes the property of whomsoever makes it into rice fields. The tenure so acquired is perpetual.

43. Paghok, or landmarks.—Whenever a rice-field terrace is walled, the terrace wall is an unfailing and unimpeachable landmark. But in many districts, the terraces are not walled. In such cases, the division lines between fields are marked by large chunks of wood or by large stones, buried three or four feet deep along the division line. A boulder is of course a most excellent landmark.

Weather and the elements are continually wearing back an unwalled terrace. The amount each year is very small. But when in the course of years the displacement is sufficient to justify it, the owner may take that part of the field in the terrace below that belongs to him.

The moving of a landmark is said never to occur, since it would take two or three men to lift the heavy stones, and would require a long time. Moreover it could not be done without leaving plain and indisputable evidence of the crime.

44. Right of way through property owned by others.—In order to get rid of insect pests, clay is sometimes conveyed to a field to form a layer over it about two inches thick. The clay is shovelled into a stream of water above, and carried as silt to the field and there allowed to settle. Sometimes leaf mold and other fertilizers are conveyed to a field in this manner.

It makes no difference how many fields there may be above that on which it is desired to deposit the sediment, the owner of the last has a right to cut a ditch through the upper fields as a conduit for the stream of water. He must, however, repair all the upper terraces so as to leave them as they were before.

45. Tenure of sweet potato fields.—Sweet potato, or camote, fields are clearings on the mountain sides about the village. They are nearly always steep slopes, and quickly lose their fertility. For that reason, they are abandoned after a period that varies in different districts of Ifugao according as camotes are a more or less important factor in the subsistence of the people. Thus in Banaue, where camotes form a very large part of the subsistence of the people, the fields are cultivated for five or even six years, if located near the village; if more distant, they are abandoned after about two years. In Kiangan, where camotes do not play such an important part in subsistence, the fields are in any case abandoned after one or two years. The reason for abandoning the fields is that the soil wears out soon, so that the camotes grow small, and the yield does not repay the labor spent in cultivation. But in case a large area about the village be cultivated, rather than face the necessity of going far from the village to make clearings, the old fields are tended to a point at which the yield becomes almost nil. After abandoning a field, the owner still has a claim on it, but only until such time as the field grows up in weeds, in which case the labor spent by him in making the clearing may be fairly presumed to have been undone. After abandonment, the field regains its fertility slowly. The first person who begins clearing the field again becomes its possessor for a new term of years. It is exceedingly rare that quarrels arise over camote fields. Camote fields are sometimes sold, but it is not the land that is sold, but the crop with temporary possession of the land.

There are two kinds of transfer of family property for “consideration”: the balal (pawn), and outright sale.

46. The balal.—In case a man finds himself under the necessity of raising a considerable sum of money—usually in order to provide funds for a funeral feast or a sacrifice—he frequently borrows the sum, giving a rice field into the hands of his creditor as a security and as a means of paying the interest on debt. The creditor holds, plants, and harvests the field until the debt be repaid. The field is to all purposes his, except that he cannot sell it. He can, however, transfer it as a balal into the hands of another. But he must transfer it for the same or a less amount of money; that is, if he has loaned fifty pesos on the field, he must not borrow more than that sum, unless, of course, he be able to secure the owner’s consent. This is a very wise provision of Ifugao law that insures the prompt return of the field to the owner as soon as he be able to get together the amount needed to redeem the field. An example will make this clear. A borrows fifty pesos of B, giving his field as a balal into B’s charge; B gives it as a balal to C for the same or a less amount, who gives it as a balal to D and so on. When A is able to repay the debt, he goes to B and delivers him the sum plus the fee of the agent through whom the deal was effected. With this amount, including the fee, B goes to C, C goes to D, and so on. Were B to have borrowed without A’s consent more than fifty pesos, say seventy pesos, and were he not financially able to obtain the difference (twenty pesos) between his debt to C and the debt that A had just paid him, there would be an excellent beginning for a quarrel that might end in lance throwing.

Real estate of this kind continues in the hands of the creditor until the debt be paid. Transfers of the same piece of land may go on indefinitely. The transfers are witnessed each time by the agent who obtains the loan for the person in whose charge the field is. This agent receives as his fee about five to twelve per cent of the value of the loan obtained. He is the only witness necessary. His fee is paid him in the first place by the creditor. But the fee is added to the amount loaned, and must be returned by the debtor when the debt is paid. As soon as the agent has received his fee, it is his duty to inform his oldest son, in case he be of sufficient age, otherwise his wife or a brother, of the terms of the transaction. This is a precautionary measure against his death and the consequent leaving of the transaction without a witness.

Each creditor is liable to his debtor for the return of the field upon the payment of the sum due, the case being precisely parallel to the liability of the indorsers of a check or a note, one to another.

Suppose, however, that the field be planted in rice. In such an event, the owner must leave the creditor in possession of the field until the crop shall have been harvested. In case the field be newly planted, it is sometimes returned to the owner on the agreement that he care for the growing crop, harvest it, and give the creditor half. If the field be spaded, but not planted, the owner may pay his creditor for the cost of the labor expended in spading the field, together with a bonus as interest.

The amount loaned on a field never equals the value of the field. Usually it is about half the value. It makes no difference how long a field remain in the status known as balal, the field, subject to the conditions of the preceding paragraph, must be returned to the owner or his heirs whenever the amount loaned be returned. Sometimes a field remains a balal for two or three generations.

47. Sales of family property.—The Ifugao has a very peculiar system of buying and selling in connection with family property, by which, paradoxical as it may sound, a man has to pay for an article almost twice its price. In order to complete the purchase of a rice field, there are “extras” almost without number, to be paid, each extra bearing as its metaphorical name, the name of some act of rice-field cultivation or of a feature of the trade itself. So far as has yet been ascertained, there is no myth or story to explain how this peculiar idiosyncracy originated.

The price is divided into ten parts, each part being represented by a runo stick or a notch cut in a stick, or by knots in a string. In the Banaue district, these sticks are kept for generations as records of the sale. The first two sticks are called budut, and represent the payment down. They are the heaviest payments, not necessarily made on the day of the transfer, but at a set time. The eight others represent some standard in the Ifugao’s system of barter, and are called gatang, or price. They are paid at some indefinite time in the future. Possession of the field is given after the first payment. In order to make the sticks conform to the standards of barter, it is sometimes necessary to represent one payment by two sticks.

Fee of witnesses and agent. This fee is called lukbu, or lagbu (in Benaue dialect). The principal witnesses are preferably the distant kin of the seller, and the agent or agents who effected the sale. The names of the different sticks, knots, or notches are translated literally in the tables diagraming the transactions in purchasing fields.

These fees are paid and the presents made to the kin of the seller at a feast called ibuy. This feast is performed whenever the purchase price of the field has been paid. The kin of buyer and seller meet in the purchaser’s house.

49. Methods of transfer.—Property is transferred within a family by two methods: by assignment and transferal during the life of the owner; and by inheritance.

50. Assignment and transfer of property during the lifetime of the owner.—At some undefined time all the family property that one possesses is assigned to his children. By “assigned,” I mean “provisionally allotted,” subject to any legitimate charge or obligation against it. A family property is always subject to sale or pawn for the purpose of providing funeral feasts, sacrifices in time of sickness or other grave necessity, payments of fines, and indemnities, made on behalf of lineal ascendants and descendants and near collateral kin. The property is usually assigned when the children are quite small.

Property is transferred (that is to say, possession is given) to the children when they marry and separate from the household of the parents. By the time the youngest child has so separated, or even before, the parents have become a charge on their children. It is only sometimes, in the case of the very rich, that a portion of the property is reserved. Childless widowed aunts or uncles usually transfer their property to those who would otherwise inherit it, and so become a charge upon those persons.

51. Inheritance.—It is only in case of the death of the parents when the children are very small, or of the death of a more distant relative from whom it is inherited, that the Ifugao receives property by inheritance.

52. The passing of property between relatives because of relationship.—The same laws govern both the assignment and transfer of property while the possessor is yet living, and the inheritance of property. Of all Ifugao laws, they are the most definite and the most invariably followed.

53. The law of primogeniture.—By this law, the elder children inherit a greater portion of the property than the younger ones, the proportion being governed by the ordinal rank of the children as to birth. If there be but one rice field, the eldest takes it. Because of his greater wealth, the eldest is frequently the family leader, counselor, and advocate. He has no actual authority over his brothers and sisters, however—indeed no person in Ifugao society has authority over another.

54. The passing of property to legitimate sons and daughters by assignment or inheritance.

(a) No distinction is made because of sex.

(b) The greatest proportion of an estate goes to the eldest child.

(c) If the number of children be greater than the number of rice fields, the elder children take the fields. If there be but one field, the eldest takes it.

(d) If all the children inherit rice fields, the heirlooms and personal property are divided in accordance with the laws of primogeniture that apply to real estate.

(e) If there be children that inherit no rice fields, a slight compensation is made them by giving them a larger share of the heirlooms and personal property than would fall to their lot otherwise. This compensation by no means equals the value of the real estate they would inherit under our laws.

(f) In the event of the death of either spouse before the property of the spouses has been allotted to the children, the living spouse allots the property to the children at the proper time. In this allotment, the brothers of the dead spouse are usually called in consultation. The living spouse may not deviate from custom in allotting the property of the deceased. All the property of both the spouses must be allotted at this time. None may be held back.

55. The passing of property to other relatives.—In the apportionment or inheritance of property in which blood relatives other than sons and daughters benefit, two general principles hold:

(a) Property received from the father goes to the father’s family; property received from the mother goes to the mother’s family. The families of the two parents coalesce in, and are identical in, their children and their childrens’ descendants.

(b) So near as may be, those persons inherit who would have inherited the property had the deceased never lived. It is only in the case of the childless that others than sons and daughters have rights in the property left.

If the deceased were unmarried, his property goes to his relatives in the following order:

(1) To his brothers and sisters, if living. To the brothers and sisters descended from one parent, passes that portion of the property received from that parent; to the brothers and sisters descended from the other parent, that portion of the property received from that parent.

(2) To the nephews and nieces, the offspring of the brothers and sisters, or to their descendants.

(3) To the cousins in order, first of degree, and second of primogeniture.

If the deceased were married, in the the inheritance of his property there are the following rules:

(1) The living spouse inherits the sole right in, and possession of, half the property jointly acquired by the spouses subsequent to their marriage. It is not, properly speaking, the property that is inherited: it is the sole right in what was a joint possession before.

(2) That half of the property jointly acquired by the spouses which is the share of the deceased, goes to his heirs, being divided (if his heirs be not his brothers and sisters or their descendants) equally between the heirs on the father’s side, and those on the mother’s side.

(3) The property that the deceased brought to the marriage and that which he acquired subsequently owing to and by virtue of his relationship to his family, goes to the deceased’s family.

Personal property acquired by the deceased and his spouse is not, however, taken from the surviving spouse. The above applies only to family property.

56. Property rights of bastards.—Bastards usually inherit approximately half the property of a father who dies without legitimate children, the other half going to those who would be the sole heirs had the father died childless. But if there be only one field, the bastard takes it.

Should a parent have only one legitimate child, the bastard inherits usually as if he were a younger legitimate child.

A bastard is entitled to a rice field from his father if the father has a rice field that is unassigned to a legitimate child. He is not entitled to any special value of fields, and as a rule, receives less than his legitimate brothers and sisters if there be such.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following examples will serve to illustrate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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