Much of the Tallano claim to the whole of the archipelago depends upon a document called OCT 01-4 allegedly signed by Dawsonne Drake in 1764, witnessed by George III, issued under the authority of the (Spanish) Royal Audencia in Manila. If this document is fraudulent then all documents of the 18th and 19th century that cite it in support of the claim must also be fraudulent.
To date, the Tallanos have not presented a single document, original or transcribed, of any Spanish-era document in its original language. From a historical point of view, it is unsatisfactory to have to rely solely on allegedly translated documents.
The Tallano supposed translation of the 1764 document is the only evidence to be addressed.
For reasons that will be discussed, the original document has never been presented in a court of law. Those reasons may be valid, if one squints a bit but the fact that the document has never been assessed by a historian familiar with the period in which it is alleged to have been written, nor validated by a competent document examiner, and one would have thought that a family in possession of thousands of tonnes of gold could have expended a little money to have the document properly validated, by itself raises questions.
To those questions one may add: how can anyone give assurance that a translation of a barely readable document is actually accurate?
All that is available is what is alleged to be a translation of the original document. And that translation itself bears the evidence of fraud.
Now, let’s look at that translation, what was happening at the time the original is alleged to have been written, and whether it is congruent with the historical record.