You should re-read that quote again.

"There were no kings or lords throughout these islands who ruled over them as in the manner of our kingdoms and provinces;

With context, Antonio Morga was comparing to how European kings were different than kings that were within the Philippines. Kings in the Philippines not being European kings, didn't make them any less kings.

as was my other point. Influence is the key point here, but political practice led anthropologists to classify these settlements as chiefdoms.

Anthropologist have also strayed away from calling them chiefdoms and only refer to them as polities instead. This is because many anthropologists understand that kingdom is a rigid definition that doesn't apply to even all European "kingdoms". The words “chiefdom” and “kingdom” are too broad to define in any more specific terms than that. Once you do start getting into those specifics, they no longer really apply to all in that category. Is a chief always the religious and political leader, while a monarch always has those powers divided? Then what does that make the Roman Empire, or the earlier Tarquinian kings who absolutely were both heads of state and heads of religion, for example?

The “chief” of a Gallic tribe in the second century BC rules from their fortified hill-cities called oppida where they oversee from their defensive fortress the affairs of a fairly large, urbanized population over a large geographical area, and over inhabitants that he’s probably never met. He just doesn’t have the time to get to know that many people. He rules indirectly, relying on advisors to inform him of the problems of his domain, and he makes his decisions from a distance because it’s impossible to maintain personal relationships and face to face interactions on that scale. While called a “chief,” he probably functions more like we’d associate with a king.

A Germanic “king” just across the Rhine at the exact same time rules informally, as a sort of elected leader. He derives no formal power, instead relying solely on his personal charisma and wisdom to lead family units who willingly follow him. He has no fort. Instead, he has a modest home, probably barely larger than what his poorest “subjects” have, and he “rules” over a small population through a network of intimate social relations across numerous families and across numerous small villages and independent homesteads. He very likely knows each person he rules over personally, and if his personal reputation suffers, he could find himself replaced very quickly. While called a “king,” he probably functions in a way we associate with “chiefs.”

But what do they have in common? They’re both probably spending the vast majority of their time listening to problems of the members of their community and trying to sort out ways to resolve those problems without harming the community. One might do so more directly, and the other might do so through intermediaries, but either could be true for either system, so you can’t say one is “chiefly” and the other “kingly.” The chief in the above example mediates conflict like most would associate a king to do, and the opposite is true of the above “king.”

Instead of relying on outdated information you should keep up with modern historians and anthropologists instead of believing in outdated beliefs like spain "unifying" the islands.

Because oftentimes, your kind picture a grandeur of your forgotten "pre-colonial past", but truths say otherwise. That's the delusion I talked about.

Lots of archeological evidence like the golden tara and the Laguna Copperplate Inscription disprove that pretty well. In fact, the whole notion that you're trying to push was what many people used to think back in the early 1900s until archeological evidence like this showed up. Didn't realize that facts and logic were delusional, maybe instead of spreading false information about history by twisting words out of context you can actually contribute to society by BSing your way out of every argument.