Is it convincible that the true Filipino whom possessed only a real property such as land etc.?

Question

The other who not are possessed real property they are not counted as Filipino. (they like ethas and baddiaos) considered as Filipino but economically.

Answer 1

The Philippine Constitution and Immigration laws define who are legally Filipinos.

However, your question, I think, refer to social acceptance of those poorly situated, economically speaking, regardless of whether you call them Filipinos, Americans, Australians, French, whatever.

Are those Les Miserables French?   Are those paupers in the slum areas of the Bronx Americans?   Are those homeless vagabonds in Australia Australians?   Are those destitutes in the remote areas of the Philippine South, victims of endless wars and land-grabbing, Filipinos?

I think that those illustrados like Rizal lived and died not only so that only illustrados like themselves would enjoy the equal protection of the laws.   Most had lived lives in exile, and persecution so that the oppressed would be freed,  and live as equal citizens of a sovereign state.

Answer 2

Please check your grammar.. Anyways, the answer is no.. Aetas and Badjaos are native Filipinos who are comparable to American Indians.. They should have ancestral domain lands officially granted by the government though...

Answer 3

Beware of con artists.