Emilio Aguinaldo made an interview to a spanish newspaper in 1958, published shortly after his death in 1962. This interview was published after his death by a newspaper under the franquist regime in Spain, so the source might not be all that trustworthy. Here is a modern article with some pieces of the interview in the same newspaper, and here in the spanish wikipedia article for Emilio Aguinaldo.
The original quote in spanish is: " Sí. Estoy arrepentido en buena parte por haberme levantado contra España y, es por eso, que cuando se celebraron los funerales en Manila del Rey Alfonso de España, yo me presenté en la catedral para sorpresa de los españoles. Y me preguntaron por qué había venido a los funerales del Rey de España en contra del cual me alcé en rebelión… Y, les dije que sigue siendo mi Rey porque bajo España siempre fuimos súbditos, o ciudadanos, españoles pero que ahora, bajo los Estados Unidos, somos tan solo un Mercado de consumidores de sus exportaciones, cuando no parias, porque nunca nos han hecho ciudadanos de ningún estado de Estados Unidos… Y los españoles me abrieron paso y me trataron como su hermano en aquel día tan significativo… "
Loosely translated by me to english reads like: " Yes. I regret to a large extent revolting against Spain and, that's why, when the funerals for the king Alfonso [XIII] of Spain were celebrated in Manila, I showed up in the cathedral to the surprise of the spaniards. They asked me why had I come to the funeral of the king against who I rebelled... I told them that he continues to be my king because under the spanish rule we were always spanish subjects or citizens, but now, under the USA, we are just a consumer market for their exports, when not pariah, because they never made us citizens of any state in the USA... And the spanish opened the way for me and treated me like a brother in that significant day [the funeral?]"
Does this seem a trustworthy quote? How accurately does Aguinaldo's opinion reflect the general feelings of the filipinos after achieving independence?
Hey there! I will try giving this question something of an attempt, though I don't have some of my key sources on hand right now. I'm a sociologist but with a significant interest in Philippine history as well. What I'll try to do is touch on some background context that might help; I'm excited to hear if anyone else has more to say. One thing I really can't speak on at all is the reliability of the Spanish source you provide, unfortunately.
To begin, the Philippine revolution (first against Spain, and then the US), like many revolutions, was not a totally unified movement. It's participants did not all share the same backgrounds, identities, methods, alliances, or goals. Although we may look back on the conflicts happening at the time as a single, broad revolution, not all of the participating groups felt that way then. There were significant ethno-linguistic, class, and political divisions, which had some overlap. Jose Rizal is often cited as a sort of "founding father" of the Philippines, and he certainly played a major part in the revolution (both through his book Noli me Tangere, and subsequent execution by the Spanish for publishing it). But Rizal himself didn't even favor total independence - he preferred that the Philippines become a full, integrated part of Spain. There were others like him with that view. I'm not certain if Aguinaldo expressed similar views at that time, but he did have a similar privileged background. Indeed, many powerful Filipino figures in that time involved in the revolution were privileged, upper class people, often with some Spanish ancestry.
People like Rizal and Aguinaldo can be contrasted with other, sometimes more forgotten, groups of Philippine revolutionaries that were more militant and in favor of full independence. These groups were often comprised of people from more marginalized ethnic groups, lower class / peasant backgrounds, and also of course the Muslim Filipinos in the south. Chief among these figures is Andres Bonifacio, who is another leading contender for the top Philippine national hero (he's on the current 5 peso coin). Aguinaldo actually had Bonifacio executed under highly controversial circumstances. And he wasn't the only one - many historians believe that Aguinaldo had General Antonio Luna assassinated (their best and only formally trained general), potentially because he feared his growing popularity.
Hopefully by now you can see that the revolution's key figures did not all share the same goals, and they were not all on the same side (seeing as they sometimes killed each other).
(continued below)