Talk:Juan Macapagal

Single source
The article relies heavily on a single source, and with that source being a hardcopy journal, it's quite difficult to verify citations and refs online. Needs more online sources. Tagged accordingly. &mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak!  12:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So it was Juan Macapagal himself who wrote a letter to a spanish official saying that he is a son of a Capulong. Was he acknowledged by this guy Capulong as his son knowing that Capulong is childless? Did he present a Spanish partido bautismo as a proof that he is indeed a son of Capulong? Will a Spanish priest allow in the partido bautismo that the father has a Capulong surname while the son has a Macapagal surname? It will be disallowed as a hoax hence the absence of the Spanish Partido Bautismo. Did the Spaniards acknowledge his letter? or they just considered it a hoax because of the different surnames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.8.184 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? Why is it that the surname of the father is Capulong but the surname of the son is Macapagal? Why? Parang pilit na pilit yung link ah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.255.254 (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Some detractors of Macapagal's claim to the Lakan Bunao Dula lineage are indeed capitalizing on Juan Macapagal history that says he descended from Dionisio Capulong. Lakan Bunao Dula died on 1575 at the age of 72 and Dionisio Capulong was born in 1594.It is biologically impossible for a son to be born several years after the death of the father. So, Dionisio Capulong is not a son of Lakan Bunao Dula. Lakan Dula eldest son, Batang Dula, was born 1535 and it is possible that Dionisio Capulong is a son of Batang Dula, the eldest son of Lakan Bunao Dula. That is maybe the reason why some historians are saying that Batang Dula and Dionisio Capulong are one and the same, only to realize that they are actually father and son.

Because historical records shows that based on date of birth of Dionisio Capulong (1594), he can not be the son of Lakan Dula or Lakan Carlos Dula who died on 1575, therefore, it is possible that Dionisio Capulong is the son of other children of Lakan Dula, although it has still to be proven. The childrren of Lakan Dula are as follows: Batang Dula, the eldest son of Lakan Bunao Dula; Don Magat Salamat, who would later rule Tondo with his cousin Agustin de Legazpi after Lakandula died, and who was then executed by the Spanish in 1588 for his role in the Revolt of the Lakans;Don Felipe Salonga, the Datu of Pulu;Doña Maria Poloin, his only historically recorded daughter, who married Don Juan Alonso Talabos; and Don Martin Lakandula who entered the Augustinian Order as a lay brother in 1590 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.173.227 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is it that based on the article Gonzalo Capulong has no children with surname Capulong? Are the people with surname Capulong today not descendants of Lakan Dula? This will anger the descendants of Petrona Capulong of Sta. Ana whose descendants are leading the House of Capulong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.63.149 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

With this article coming from the Macapagal Family, it can be said that it was the Macapagal who ended the lineage of Capulong..because based on their version, the Gonzalo Capulong has no children with a surname Capulong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.101.149 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why the Capulong has no children with a surname Capulong is because according historians, he is childless and all his "children" were just adopted. Capulong is so kind that despite he has no children of his own blood, he adopts children from less fortunate neighbors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.101.149 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

List the children of Lakan Bunao Dula of Tondo versus the children of Carlos Lacandola of Arayat, they have different set of children. The surname of the only girl child of Lakan Bunao Dula of Tondo is Poloin from where the Jose Rizal lineage came. Based on the birth certificates, one of the children of Carlos Lacandola is a Reyes who married somebody with surname Lacandola. Conclusion: Lakan Bunao Dula of Tondo and Carlos Lacandola of Arayat are two different persons -- one is a patriot, the other is a traitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.101.146 (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Although the main pages of the articles are controlled by the paid hacks of the Macapagals, the Talk Pages of Lakandula and Juan Macapagal Articles of the Wikipedia has proven that the Macapagals are not descendants of Lakan Dula. This could be a good contribution of Wikipedia in the rectifying some anomalies in the Philippine history. Without Wikipedia, this historical plunder will not be discovered. The Filipino people wishes to thank Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.47.67 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

National Archives
Such document does not exist in the Philippines' national archives. As such, this entry is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockjock810 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The father of Juan Macapagal, according to this article, is Gonzalo Capulong. The father is capulong, the son is Macapagal? How? Why? Gonzalo Capulong had a gay marriage with a guy named Gregorio Macapagal. Because they cant conceive a baby because they are both males, they adopted a baby and baptized it Juan Macapagal. From whom they adopted the baby? Well, there was a tindera with many children and she was caught stealing money one day from the store.She was jailed. The jail guard one night was drunked and invited the middle aged women to a comfort room. After 9 months, a baby boy was born. He was adopted by the gay couple Gonzalo Capulong ang Gregorio Macapagal. The baby boy was baptized as Juan. So, from a guy named Gonzalo Capulong, to a son baptized as Juan Macapagal. It now makes sense. This explains the whole stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.47.71 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Arturo M Pangan @Psygnamon Juris: I advised you to please read the writings of William Henry Scott. In his writings, he said that Lakan is a title which means "paramount ruler". The first name of Lakan Dula is Bunao, and Dula is the last name which came from a Baybayin translation of his mother's name Ysmeria Doylly. So, you are correct that Lakan is a title just like datu. The complete name therefore will be Title - First Name - Last Name or Lakan Bunao Dula. People who are close to President GMA would like to spell Lakan Bunao Dula  as simply Lakandula because they want to move it closer to Lacandola, who happen to be a common Filipino surname and the surname of GMA grand lolo. They thought that by eventually stealing Lakan Bunao Dula with Lacandola would make them a descendant. What they fail to realized that to be a descendant, they should come from the seven children of Lakan Bunao Dula and unfortunately, Lakan Bunao Dula has no children with Lacandola surname. I think their next move is to say that Juan Macapagal is one of the children of Capulong, but how come the father is Capulong but the son is Macapagal. Again, another mistake. I think they need to consult Atty. Gadon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.49.212 (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As one of the requirements of the Spanish detachment in Lubao when he asked for more privileges to be given to his family, Juan Macapagal had to show some proofs of descent from the old Lord of Tondo to the doubting Spaniards. Juan Macapagal alleged that his parents were Capitan Don Gonzalo Capulong and Dona Maria Bina; Daba Capulong and Gonzalo Capulong were adopted children of the childless Don Dionisio Capulong, the eldest son of Don Carlos Lacandola of Lubao. There was no historical records in Lubao if the allegations of Juan Macapagal were honored by the local Spanish detachment in the absence of a birth or baptismal certificate, or if he was recognized as a son by Dionisio Capulong, or if it was discovered as a hoax by the local Spanish detachment and was arrested. Juan Macapagal had at least 3 brothers and a sister: Don Juan de Guevarra, Don Miguel Alfonso de Lapira, Don Nicolas Lacandola, and Dona Cathalina Bina. He himself had 5 children, who were Dona Maria Macapagal, Don Francisco Macapagal, Don Pablo Macapagal, Don Salvador Macapagal, and Don Piotenciano Macapagal (Source: Santiago, R.B. The Royal Houses of Ancient Manila, NHI Publications, 1965. P.79)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.66.180 (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If this article is written by a Macapagal family, it is clear that they want to erase the surname Capulong. They are saying that Capulong is childless and later they said that the children of Capulong are not carrying the surname of Capulong but of Macapagal, Bina, Guevarra and Lacandola... and no Capulong at all.

The House of Capulong is very much alive today. It is part of the the Council of the Principalia of the Philippines. The House of Capulong is headed by Dr. Cecille Cayetano, a direct descendant of Petrona Capulong of Sta. Ana who descended from Daba Capulong where Candaba (owned by Daba) was named after. Dr. Cayetano's DNA also matched with a royal lineage of Indonesia who seemed to have an arranged marriage with the scion of the House of Capulong in the olden days. If President Gloria Macapagal would really want to prove that she belongs to the House of Capulong, maybe she should take a DNA test and see if it would match with the DNA of Dr. Cecille Cayetano. This would remove the talks that the Macapagal is not a descendant of Lakan Bunao Dula, the last King of Tondo. But the question is: will the macapagals risk their often - despised claim that they are descendant of Lakan Dula?

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)