✒️ Literal Translation & Analysis:

🗺️ Page 429–430

"Lib. 1, p.2, prueba con Tholomeo, que las Islas Philipinas eran las Maniolas, por la semejanza grande de este nombre, con el nombre Manila..."

Translation:
“Book 1, page 2, proves with Ptolemy that the Philippine Islands are the Maniolas, due to the strong similarity of that name with Manila…”

🔍 This is a direct identification of Ptolemy’s “Maniolas” with the city of Manila and its surrounding isles. Navarrete points out what modern scholars pretend not to see: linguistic, geographic, and historical continuity.

“...si Manila fuera, o hubiera sido en algún tiempo nombre de aquella isla…”

Analysis:
He acknowledges that if Manila was a name for the island as a whole (as several maps indicate), or derived from it, then Ptolemy's identification makes perfect sense — because it is the same region. He was clearly aware of Magellan's corrections of Ptolemy, as modern scholars should be. He also emphasizes the Tagalog root names and the logic of these derivations. This utterly obliterates modern denials that Maniolas = Manila = Luzon.

Navarrete also affirms the ships fashioned without nails fitting Ptolemy's account of Maniola and that magnetic lodestone (magnetite) was very abundant throughout the Philippines which remains so today according to mining reports and the National Museum of the Philippines.

Indeed, he doubts the legend that the lodestone could literally stop a ship which we do as well. However, the legend remained there all along regardless. Magnetic anomalies however, are factual around the Philippine waters and likely, it is the Maniola shoals that spawned such legend which is why we see them called magnetic in Behaim's 1492 inscription next to Mindanao.

Yes, maps affirm Maniola as a name for Luzon or a portion. More on that soon. All affirm that is what Ptolemy meant all along when he labeled Maniola which Magellan, Behaim, Columbus and others adjust correcting Ptolemy's Golden Isles (NONE are Peninsulas) to the Philippines. 

🗺️ Page 430–431

“En el cap. 4.pagin.16. trata de los Fundadores, o Pobladores de aquellas Islas,y Archipielago, y dize fue Tharfis, hijo de lauan, y Ophir, y Heuilath de la India,de que fe trata en el capit. 10. del Genef. Grande antiguedad de morado-res dà aquella tierra. En auer fido faci-lifsimo poblaríe todas aquellas Islas,por eftar algunas cercanífsimas a la tierra Continente, para mi no tiene duda.”

Translation:
“In chapter 4, page 16, it deals with the Founders or Settlers of those Islands and Archipelago, and it is said that it was Tharsis, son of Javan, and Ophir, and Havilah of India, of whom it is dealt with in chapter 10 of Genesis. Great antiquity of inhabitants of that land. In succession it would be very easy to populate all those Islands, since some of them are very close to the Continent, for me there is no doubt.”

🔍 Navarrete is here stating plainly: the ancient biblical regions of Tarshish, Ophir, and Havilah were in the Philippines and he believes without doubt the Philippines fit that identity best. He uses Genesis 10, which lists descendants of Noah spreading into those regions, to anchor the idea that these islands were peopled in antiquity from that biblical dispersion.