History of Pila

A group of principales led by the tres hermanos Don Felizardo, Don Miguel and Don Rafael de Rivera (great-grandsons of Don Juán), supported by the parish priest, were convinced that the town had become totally uninhabitable. They offered their hacienda in Sta. Clara, notable for its high location, as the new site of the town. An opposite faction formed insinuating that the Riveras exaggerated the situation in order to profit from the transfer of the town to their estate. The town was, therefore, split into two groups, the “pros” and the “contras” depending, respectively, on whether they were for or against the move (Santiago 1983). (32)

Although unpopular and outnumbered, the pros appeared to have the upper hand because they were an influential group. However, their ultimate asset was not influence but the incontrovertible reality of the circumstances. With the passing of each year of litigation and inaction by the contras, it became more and more clear that the days of old Pila were numbered, if not by human decree, by the undeflectable deluge from the lake. Time and tide wait for no one. The contras, on the other hand, seemed determined to “go against the current.” Their strength lay in their number for they clearly stood for the majority. As a consequence, the colonial government tried to defer to them as much as possible, thus diminishing the advantage of the pros. Also, the sentiment they expressed – conserving an ancient town – easily evoked sympathy in the outsider (Santiago 1983). (33)

The first decree issued by the governor-general on 7 November 1794 favored the pros. It ordered the transfer to Sta. Clara within a period of three years during which the townspeople were to be exempted from payment of tributes, forced labor and personal services. The contras, of course, objected to the decree and instead recommended building a massive dike along the shores of the lake to prevent inundation. Indeed, this sounded very logical at the time. The governor-general, therefore, signed another decree on 2 June 1796 taking up the suggestion of the contras (Santiago 1983). (34)

Instead of opposing the second decree, the pros simple informed the governor that they had already been faithfully complying with the first decree for the past year and a half. In fact, they had cast a new bell for a new church in Sta. Clara. The bewildered governor responded with the usual delaying tactics: an investigation into the origin of the “new representation” that is, by the contras. Incredibly, the case dragged on for the next seven years (Santiago 1983).(35)