Let me recap:
Barangay in the Spanish days did not have a geographical character that the term Barangay has today. To put it more plainly, Barangay was not a place or as is said, a village, and the place or village was not classifed a barangay.
In those days, yes, those places that we still know today by their names?–no, they were not called barangays then, just “lugar” (place). The term Barangay only referred to a group of individuals under a cabeza, formed for administrative and tax collection purposes. The individuals may live in one, or in different places, but were said to still belong to just one barangay.
What makes me say that?
1) Records show cabezas had jurisdiction over individuals from different “places”, therefore, the cabeza’s particular “barangay” was not limited to one place or village. (ex., Don Roman Sarmiento’s barangay had individuals from one end of the town, Sangat, to the other, Latid and Bolinauan.)
2) in a given village, there would be many cabezas over different individuals. (ex., in 1852, individuals residing in Cogon were under at least 6 cabezas. Meaning, Cogon was not one barangay under one cabeza as we would have thought it to be)
I know almost all history books and articles on the barangay say the early barangays were already villages, or at least of being a geographical territory. But that’s not what one would learn from reading between the lines of the Carcar parish books. At least, this was the case with Carcar. But why should it have been different anywhere else in the country?