NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION

OF THE PHILIPPINES

NHCP’s Latest Ruling on the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass Controversy

Rene R. Escalante, Ph.D.

Chairman, National Historical Commission of the Philippines and
Executive Director, National Quincentennial Committee

Note: This statement is based on the official report of the panel that NHCP created to settle the
said historical problem and by the NHCP Board Resolution adopting the conclusion of the
aforesaid panel report.

Introduction

As part of its mandate to resolve historical controversies, the National Historical

Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) revisited the controversy surrounding the site of the 1521
Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines which, according to Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of the
Magellan-Elcano expedition, happened on 31 March 1521 in a place he identified as Mazaua. The
issue as to the exact location of the said mass was resolved by the forerunner of the NHCP, the
National Historical Institute (NHI), through two panels of experts: the first headed by former
Supreme Court Justice Emilio Gancayco (1995) and the second by historian Dr. Benito J. Legarda
(2008). Both panels ruled that the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass was in Limasawa Island,
now a municipality in Southern Leyte.

Reopening of the Historical Problem

In 2018, NHCP received a number of requests from various institutions, including the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), to reexamine the earlier decisions of the
NHI. These requests were made in the light of some claims that there were new primary sources
and evidences that surfaced recently which were not taken into consideration by the previous
panels. NHCP also saw the necessity of reopening a new inquiry because of the forthcoming
commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in the Philippines in
2021.

NHCP-CBCP Joint Panel

In November 2018, the NHCP created a new panel of experts that reexamined the historical
controversy and reviewed the findings of the previous panels. It was headed by historian and
National Artist for Literature Dr. Resil Mojares, and the members included national and
internationally-recognized historians, paleographers, and translators: Dr. Danilo M. Gerona
(Partido State University), Dr. Francis M. Navarro (Ateneo de Manila University), Dr. Carlos
Madrid Álvarez-Piñer (University of Guam), and Fr. Antonio Francisco B. de Castro, SJ (Loyola
School of Theology, representing CBCP). Historian Dr. Jose Victor Z. Torres (De La Salle
University) was the panel’s Secretary-General. Dr. Rene Escalante, NHCP Chairperson, made
sure that no member of the panel came from either Agusan del Norte or Southern Leyte so that
their decision would be based primarily on evidence and sound analysis, and not on regional or
territorial biases. Aside from Fr. de Castro, CBCP was also represented by other church historians
as observers of the panel’s proceedings. Those who regularly attended the meetings were Fr. Milan
Ted Torralba (CBCP Episcopal Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church); Fr. Emil
Quilatan, OAR (Archivist, Augustinian Recollect Archives); Fr. Amado Tumbali, SJ (Archivist,
Archives of the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus); Fr. Antolin Uy, SVD (historian), and
Fr. Albert Flores (Archivist, Manila Archdiocesan Archives and Museum).

1
Primary Sources Used

The National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) appropriated funds and provided the panel
with the documents it needed to come up with a well-researched output. Through official
correspondences with various foreign institutions, NQC obtained high-resolution digital copy of
the extant Pigafetta manuscripts. These included the French version (Nancy Codex) currently kept
in Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library; the Italian version in the
Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Ambrosiana Codex) in Milan, Italy; and the two French
versions in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. NQC also secured from the Edward Ayer
Collection at Newberry Library in Chicago, the transcriptions and notes made by American scholar
James Alexander Robertson, who translated Pigafetta’s manuscript into English in 1906. Aside
from Pigafetta, the panel also obtained and consulted the accounts of other survivors of the
Magellan Expedition like Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, and the “Genoese Pilot.” The Ateneo
de Manila University’s Rizal Library also shared with the panel the materials on the 400th
anniversary of the Magellan-Elcano expedition in 1921 from the Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
Collection. At least twenty-eight (28) secondary sources, most of them in digital format, were also
obtained by NHCP for the examination by the panel.

Butuan Proponents

One particular task that the panel members agreed was to visit the actual contested sites
proposed by both parties. They also agreed that all contending parties would be given equal
opportunity and ample time to present their evidences and argue their respective positions.
Participants were asked to follow the basic rule of historiography, meaning that every assertion
made must be supported by credible, authentic, and verifiable primary sources. On 9 November
2018, the panel went to Butuan City to listen to the pro-Butuan proponents. Dr. Potenciano Malvar
and Mr. Gabriel Atega were given one whole day to discuss their respective position papers. The
following day, Dr. Torres, on behalf of the panel, went to Barangay Baug, Magallanes, Agusan
del Norte where the 1872 monument commemorating the 1521 Easte Sunday mass was located.
On 17 July 2019, Dr. Madrid and Dr. Malvar visited Mount Mina-asog in Tubay, Agusan del Norte
which, according to Dr. Malvar, was where the expedition allegedly erected a cross after the mass.

On January 19, 2019, Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro, who was then the
acting Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Butuan, forwarded to NHCP several published
articles written by Mr. Gregorio Jose Hontiveros, one of which is entitled, “A Fire on the Island:
Reasserting the Pro-Masao Position.” As per recommendation of Dr. Escalante, the Panel
considered the article as part of the pro-Butuan position papers on 6 February 2019.

A Visit in Limasawa

The panel went to Tacloban City on 25 April 2019 to listen to the presentation of Dr.
Rolando Borrinaga, the representative of the pro-Limasawa side. Aside from presenting evidence
reasserting Limasawa as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday mass, Dr. Borrinaga explained that the
mass took place in the western side of Limasawa and not in the eastern side (now named Barangay
Magallanes) where a shrine commemorating the event is located. The following day, the panel
went to Limasawa to conduct an ocular survey of the places mentioned by Dr. Borrinaga. They
went to the shrine at Barangay Magallanes and then proceeded to Barangay Triana to visit the site
proposed by Dr. Borrinaga. The members also climbed Totoy-Totoy Peak which according to Dr.
Borrinaga was the mountain where the cross was erected after the mass. While on the mountaintop,
the members noted a view of three islands that seems to be closely identified with the ones
Pigafetta mentioned is his chronicle.

Approval process of the terminal report

The members of the panel met thrice to discuss the position papers and to deliberate on the
final ruling on the controversy. The first meeting was held in Cebu, second in Tacloban, and third
in Manila. On 9 January 2020, Dr. Mojares officially submitted the terminal report of the panel

2
to the NHCP. Dr. Escalante routed the report to the History Departments of the University of the
Philippines Diliman, Ateneo de Manila University, University of Santo Tomas, and De La Salle
University. He also shared the report to the presidents of the Philippine National Historical Society
(PNHS), Philippine Historical Association (PHA), and Asosasyon ng mga Dalubhasa may Hilig
at Interes sa Kasaysayan (ADHIKA) ng Pilipinas. These institutions were enjoined to react and
comment on the ruling of the panel. Except for UST and ADHIKA that did not send an official
position on the report, all other institutions favorably agreed with the ruling of the panel. The
report was discussed by the NHCP Board of Commissioners in their June and July 2020 meetings.
Except for Commissioner Abraham Sakili, the eight other NHCP Commissioners signed
Resolution No. 2, s. 2020 on 15 July 2020, adopting the report of the Panel that the 1521 Easter
Sunday Mass took place on Limasawa.

Ramusio and the Centuries-old Butuan Tradition

Among pro-Butuan set of evidences that the panel examined were the numerous accounts
written by non-eyewitnesses decades after the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. These include the 1581
Edict of Bishop Domingo Salazar, the Anales ecclesiasticos de Filipinas 1574-1683, the 1886
Breve reseña de diocesis de Cebu, Fr. Francisco Colin’s Labor evangélica: Ministerios apostolicos
de los obreros de la Compaña de Jesus (1663), Fr. Francisco Combés’ Historia de Mindanao y
Jolo (1667), Fray Gaspar de San Agustin’s Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1698), the 1872
monument in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and a few other accounts written by American
authors in the early part of the 20th century. They all claimed that the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass
happened in Butuan. The panel acknowledged that for almost three centuries, majority of the
literature declared that the first mass took place somewhere in Butuan. It was only after the original
Pigafetta manuscripts were made available to scholars in the 19th century that the shift to Limasawa
started.

The historiography of the Butuan tradition was carefully analyzed by Miguel Bernad S.J.
in his article in Kinaadman entitled “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidences” and by William Henry Scott in an article in the
same journal entitled “Why then the Butuan Tradition?” They wrote that the tradition was the
result of the reliance of early historians on Gian Battista Ramusio’s 3-volume Delle navigationi et
viaggi (1550) and Maximilianus Transylvanus’ De Moluccis Insulis. In their books, Ramusio and
Transylvanus recounted the voyage of the Magellan-Elcano expedition based on the accounts of
the survivors. It became the most dominant and authoritative source of information and were used
as basis of recounting some events connected to the first circumnavigation of the world like the
first mass in the Philippines. Scott agreed with historian Mauro Garcia that Ramusio’s work was
a garbled and mutilated summary of Pigafetta’s original account. It was Ramusio, according to
Scott, who mentioned “Buthuan” as the site of the first mass which was picked up by succeeding
authors and became a long-standing tradition. We cannot blame the early writers and
cartographers of Philippine history if they relied heavily on Ramusio because Pigafetta’s original
account was not available to them. The same principle should be applied also to pro-Butuan
advocates because they thought that the Spanish sources they quoted are anchored on reliable and
accurate eyewitness accounts.

Pigafetta and the Limasawa Tradition

Days after the Victoria (the only ship that survived the Magellan-Elcano expedition)
arrived in Seville, Pigafetta went to Valladolid where he presented to King Charles I his account
of the journey. Thereafter, he went to Portugal and did the same thing to King João III. Both
accounts did not survive in history. Then he went to France and gave a summary in Italian of his
chronicle to Louise de Savoy, mother of King Francis I of France. The queen ordered Jacques
Antoine Fabre to translate it to French and it came out in printed form in 1525 with the title Le
voyage et nauigation. This version was used by most scholars like Ramusio in narrating the story
of the first circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta later composed a more comprehensive version
of the voyage but it remained unknown to many scholars until Carlo Amoretti published it in 1800.

3
 Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Pablo Pastells, SJ were the first two scholars who revisited
the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass using the latest and more comprehensive account of Pigafetta that
became available only during their time. This was the Andrea Da Mosta transcription which was
published in 1894. In an article that Pardo de Tavera wrote in El Comercio on 31 March 1895, he
stated that the Butuan tradition was a mistake. Pastells on his part made a similar remark
questioning the veracity of the Butuan claim on the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. While working on
his edition of Colin’s Labor evangelica, he had the opportunity to study Pigafetta and Albo and on
his footnote on Colin’s account of the first mass, Pastells wrote: “Magellan did not go to Butuan.
Rather, from the island of Limasawa he proceeded to Cebu.”

Robertson published a translation of the Pigafetta manuscript in 1906 using the original
Ambrosiana Codex. He wrote that according to Pigafetta, the 1521 Easter Sunday mass was held
in an island called Mazaua. Robertson provided a footnote that the present name of the place is
Limasawa. In 1969, Skelton also came out with an English translation of the Nancy Codex and
noted that the mass took place in an island which Pigafetta called Mazzaua. He also identified
Limasawa as its current name. Pardo de Tavera’s correction from the Da Mosta transcription,
Pastells’ footnote on Colin, Robertson’s translation of the Ambrosiana Codex, and Skelton’s
translation of the Nancy Codex may be considered the main reasons for the shift in scholarly
opinion regarding the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Intentionally Concealed?

The panel methodically analyzed the evidences and arguments presented by the two
protagonists. The paper presented by Dr. Malvar argued that Pigafetta’s recorded latitude
measurement (9°2/3’N) was part of a plan of Magellan and King Charles I to conceal the site of
the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. This was supposedly to ensure that the newly-discovered route to
the Moluccas would remain hidden from other explorers. The panel argued that if indeed there
was such a plan, the part of the route that should remain secret should be the coordinates of the
passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean via the southern tip of South America. (the
present Strait of Magellan) and not that of the Philippines. Many explorers who sailed before
Magellan were in search of this passage and all of them failed. Hence, anyone who would discover
this would really keep it as a priceless secret. The panel also noted that Dr. Malvar’s argument
was derived from John Regan’s A Singular Captain: Magellan’s Astounding Voyage (2016), a
self-published book described by the author himself as a “fictional account” of the Magellan
voyage.

Ambrosiana vs. Nancy Codex

Majority of the pages of the panel report dealt with the position paper of Mr. Atega and
Mr. Hontiveros because the historiographical and scientific claims they presented appear to be
backed up by passages from Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s derrotero (logbook). Mr. Atega
argued that the shift from Butuan to Limasawa as the site of the mass happened after the
publication of the Robertson translation and claimed that Robertson’s translation was based on the
“garbled” Italian text of the Ambrosiana Codex that Carlo Amoretti, the prefect and conservator
of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, transcribed and published in 1800. Mr. Atega said that the
Ambrosiana Codex was “heavily-edited and full of inaccuracies.” Therefore, for Mr. Atega, the
Ambrosiana Codex vis-à-vis Robertson’s translation should not be used as the basis of determining
the nautical coordinates of the Magellan-Elcano expedition. Instead, he encouraged the panel to
use the Nancy Codex (from the Beinecke collection) of which a translation by English scholar
Raleigh Ashlin Skelton was published in 1969.

The panel took the translation issue seriously and found out that Mr. Atega’s claim was
baseless. In his introduction to his translation of Pigafetta’s account, Robertson accused Amoretti
of committing “the sin of editing the precious document, almost beyond recognition in places.”
Robertson also analyzed the Ambrosiana Codex and compared it with the transcription of the same
codex published by Andrea da Mosto in 1894. He concluded that the latter contained “few errors
and some serious blemishes from the standpoint of historical accuracy.” Moreover, the panel

4
examined the bibliographical section in the last part of Robertson’s translation where he mentioned
the sources he used and where he had a long discussion on the history of the Nancy Codex and
even described its physical appearance. The panel noted that to make these remarks, Robertson
must be familiar with the two Codices. The panel concluded that “Atega’s allegation that the
Robertson relied only on the Ambrosiana Codex is baseless.”

Upon the request of the panel, NHCP secured a copy of each extant Pigafetta manuscript
abroad and hired paleographers and translators who transcribed and translated the section that
narrated the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. Dr. Navarro took care of the transcription of the two
codices. Ms. Jillian Loise Melchor (University of the Philippines Diliman) translated the Italian
text and Mr. Robert John Yu (Ateneo de Manila University) worked on the French version. The
translation of Melchor and Yu were then compared with the Robertson and Skelton translation.

The panel noted the observation of Robertson that the Ambrosiana Codex was
“workmanlike rather than elegant” and agreed with Skelton that it might have been derived from
the original Pigafetta journal, while the Nancy Codex was a presentation copy where Pigafetta
reworked some of his text to entice possible sponsors to publish his manuscript to be used by future
explorers. Two examples that the panel cited is the phrase “pieces of gold” in the Ambrosiana
Codex that was changed to “mines of gold” in the Nancy Codex creating an impression that the
island was rich in gold. The method of extracting this gold was also changed from “sifting” (which
means panning) to “digging,” giving the impression of a rich land. After noting that Robertson
and Skelton agree that the aforesaid codices complement each other and their translation had only
minor differences, the panel dismissed Mr. Atega’s claim that Skelton should be used as the
standard text in determining the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. The panel also disagreed
with Mr. Atega’s assertion that historians who supported the Limasawa position relied only on the
Ambrosiana Codex and the Robertson translation.

Reading the Coordinates

While the panel acknowledged Mr. Atega’s painstaking analysis of the coordinates
provided by Pigafetta, Albo, and the Genoese pilot, the members exercised caution in using them
as the principal basis of their decision. Most experts agree that measurements of coordinates done
in the 16th century were done using instruments that yielded imprecise figures. This observation is
not new in the discourse because Mr. Pedro Picornell, a member of the Legarda panel, wrote
already in 2009 that “navigators in the early 16th Century had no accurate way of determining
longitude and this would have to wait until late in the 18th Century with the development of the
marine chronometer” (invented in 1761). Picornell was a historian and avid yachtsman with a lot
of experience sailing in Philippine waters.

The panel scrutinized the coordinates of Mazaua given by the eyewitnesses and compared
them with contemporary measurements. Pigafetta recorded it at 9 2/3 or 9º40’N latitude, Albo
placed it at 9 1/3 or 9º20’N latitude, and the Genoese Pilot wrote 9 or 9º00’N latitude. The panel
cited a study presented in the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference
(Bulgaria, 2016) by a group of experts who compared the coordinates given by Pigafetta with the
present coordinates using a computer-based system and the result was 9⁰56’ N latitude or only a
0⁰16’ difference against Pigafetta’s. Interestingly, the members of the panel noted that the
researchers who made the computation have no personal interest in the first mass controversy and
they identified the coordinates purely for the sake of scholarship. Even a layman can confirm the
coordinates of Limasawa by simply Googling it and the result will be a 9°54’ N latitude. Taking
all these evidences into account, the panel noted that, although the navigational coordinates during
this period were just estimates, Pigafetta’s 9º40’N latitude was still closer to Limasawa than to
Butuan which, using the modern coordinates, was located at 8°56’ N latitude.

The panel also examined the studies and projects that retraced the Magellan-Elcano
expedition route using modern navigational instruments. One project that they analyzed was the
1971 expedition of naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison and the Colombian historian Mauricio
Obregon. Guided by Albo’s log and other documents from the Archivo General de Indias in

5
Seville, they retraced the Magellan-Elcano expedition route in a two-month journey under sail.
When they reached the Philippines, Morison and Obregon were assisted by Picornell. In 2006, the
Spanish Society for International Exhibitions (SEEI) organized a similar project using a replica of
Victoria constructed by Fundacion Nao Victoria. It was equipped with 16th-century navigational
tools like an astrolabe and a quadrant as well as state-of-the- art navigational instruments. The
twenty-member crew was headed by naval engineer Ignacio Fernandez Vial, the leading Spanish
expert in reconstructing working replicas of historic ships. Merchant marine captain Jose Luis
Ugarte took charge of the navigation. He is considered Spain’s premier transoceanic yachtsman
and had twice sailed solo around the world. The Vial-Ugarte expedition stopped at Limasawa and
they logged its coordinates at between 9o58’N and 9o53’E. The Morrison-Obregon and Vial-Ugarte
expeditions found and identified Limasawa as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Geomorphic Changes

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that the topography of Agusan del Norte changed decades
after the Magellan-Elcano expedition. This was caused by strong earthquakes that resulted to the
alteration of the topography of the province and the disappearance of some islands in the northern
part of Butuan. Dr. Malvar presented a map drawn by the Augustinian Recollects in 1683
mentioning an island called Masao. He presented another map dated 1902 and the island is no
longer there. He explained that earthquake and siltation resulted to the fusion of Masao with the
mainland. This Masao, he claims, is probably the Mazaua that Pigafetta cited as the place where
the mass took place.

The panel did not take this argument seriously because it needs scientific proof and details
as to when the earthquakes took place and documentation of their effects on the topography of
Butuan. Assuming that there indeed geological changes that happened between 1521 to the
present, the location of Masao, Butuan City is too far from the coordinates given by Pigafetta and
Albo and the current reckoning of contemporary experts.

Limasawa Had No Provisions and Spices

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that ever since, Limasawa was a remote island and cannot
sustain the daily needs of the members of the expedition. Butuan, on the other hand, is a highly-
civilized settlement as proven by a lot of archeological discoveries in this part of Mindanao. They
wanted to point out that Limasawa did not have the necessary provisions that could sustain the
expedition for seven days. To answer this point, the Panel revisited the documents of the Villalobos
expedition particularly the saga of San Cristobal, one of the ships of Villalobos that was separated
from the fleet after experiencing turbulent weather. It stayed in Limasawa for two months and
there are no accounts that they had problems with provisions while waiting to be connected with
the fleet. This only suggests that 16th century Limasawa was prosperous enough to host foreign
visitors. The panel also asked “if Butuan was the place where the First Mass was celebrated and
it was highly civilized during the 16th century, how come it did not become the prime destination
of the expeditions that followed Magellan?”

Conclusion

The panel unanimously agreed that the evidences and arguments presented by the pro-
Butuan advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal or reversal of the
ruling on the case by the NHI. Hence, the panel recommended that Limasawa Island, Southern
Leyte, be sustained as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Recommendation

Before it ended its report, the panel recommended to the NHCP and to the Butuan-based
scholars to explore further the historical significance of Butuan as a precolonial trading center.
Butuan has a lot of archeological artifacts and cultural traditions that could be used to promote the
city as a one of the country’s premier historic sites.