4/20/2018 G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v.

DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY : NOVEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPI…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > November 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27873 November
29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27873. November 29, 1983.]

HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-30035. November 29, 1983.]

ROQUE BORRE and ENCARNACION DELFIN, Petitioners, v. ANGEL ALPASAN, HEIRS OF

MELQUIADES BORRE, EMETERIO BEREBER and HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI and THE CAPIZ
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; PUBLIC LAND ACT; FOREST LAND; CLASSIFICATION NOT LOST EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN
STRIPPED OF FOREST COVER; UNLESS RELEASED IN AN OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION AS DISPOSABLE
LANDS, RULES ON CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE DO NOT APPLY. — A forested area classified as
forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may
have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with
grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on
mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other
tress growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is
descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually
looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that
effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
2. ID.; ID.; FOREST LANDS; ACQUISITIVE OWNERSHIP NOT ACQUIRED. — This Court ruled in the
leading case of Director of Forestry v. Muñoz (23 SCRA 1184) that possession of forest lands, no matter
how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. And in Republic v. Animas (56 SCRA 499), we granted the
petition on the ground that the ares covered by the patent and title was not disposable public land, it
being a part of the forest zone and any patent and title to said area is void ab initio. It bears emphasizing
that a positive act of Government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert
it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.

3. ID.; ID.; CONFIRMATION, OF IMPERFECT TITLE CASES; BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW HAVE BEEN MET, RESTS ON THE APPLICANT. — In confirmation of imperfect
title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of Section 48,
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942. He must overcome the presumption
that the land he is applying for is part of the public domain but that he has an interest therein sufficient
to warrant registration in his name because of an imperfect title such as those derived from old Spanish
grants or that he has had continuous, open, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for at least thirty (30)
years preceding the filing of his application.

DECISION
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1983novemberdecisions.php?id=535 1/4
4/20/2018 G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY : NOVEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPI…
November-1983 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983 - JOSE B.L.
REYES v. RAMON BAGATSING
210 Phil. 457
G.R. Nos. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983 -
VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
210 Phil. 482
G.R. Nos. L-33822-23 November 22, 1983 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES PANGANIBAN, ET AL.
210 Phil. 499
G.R. No. L-47282 November 23, 1983 -
CONSTANCIO ABAPO v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.
210 Phil. 529
G.R. No. L-57091 November 23, 1983 - PAZ S.
BAENS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
210 Phil. 535
G.R. No. L-23625 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARIANO TERRADO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28255 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARTIN C. MAGTIRA
211 Phil. 7
G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983 - ROSITA
SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VICTORIA DE
GUZMAN, ET AL.
211 Phil. 26
G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983 - CLEMENTE
BRIÑAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
211 Phil. 37
G.R. No. L-32312 November 25, 1983 - AURELIO
TIRO v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.
211 Phil. 46
G.R. No. L-32573 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL.
211 Phil. 50
G.R. No. L-33277 November 25, 1983 - JORGE C.
PACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
211 Phil. 64
G.R. No. L-44412 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JAIME V. SAMBANGAN
211 Phil. 72
G.R. No. L-49656 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO S. QUINTAL
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1983novemberdecisions.php?id=535
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
The two petitions for review on certiorari before us question the decision of the Court of Appeals which
declared the disputed property as forest land, not subject to titling in favor of private persons.
These two petitions have their genesis in an application for confirmation of imperfect title and its
registration filed with the Court of First Instance of Capiz. The parcel of land sought to be registered is
known as Lot No. 885 of the Cadastral Survey of Pilar, Capiz, and has an area of 645,703 square
meters.cralawnad
Roque Borre, petitioner in G.R. No, L-30035, and Melquiades Borre, filed the application for registration.
In due time, the heirs of Jose Amunategui, petitioners in G.R. No. L-27873 filed an opposition to the
application of Roque and Melquiades Borre. At the same time, they prayed that the title to a portion of
Lot No. 885 of Pilar Cadastre containing 527,747 square meters be confirmed and registered in the
names of said Heirs of Jose Amunategui.
The Director of Forestry, through the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz, also filed an opposition to the application
for registration of title claiming that the land was mangrove swamp which was still classified as forest
land and part of the public domain.
Another oppositor, Emeterio Bereber filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot No. 885 containing
117,956 square meters was concerned and prayed that title to said portion be confirmed and registered
in his name.
During the progress of the trial, applicant-petitioner Roque Borre sold whatever rights and interests he
may have on Lot No. 885 to Angel Alpasan. The latter also filed an opposition, claiming that he is entitled
to have said lot registered in his name.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Capiz adjudicated 117,956 square meters to Emeterio Bereber
and the rest of the land containing 527,747 square meters was adjudicated in the proportion of 5/6 share
to Angel Alpasan and 1/6 share to Melquiades Borre.
Only the Heirs of Jose Amunategui and the Director of Forestry filed their respective appeals with the
Court of Appeals, The case was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 34190-R.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . the conclusion so far must have to be that as to the private litigants that have been shown to have
a better right over Lot 885 are, as to the northeastern portion of a little less than 117,956 square
meters, it was Emeterio Bereber and as to the rest of 527,747 square meters, it was the heirs of Jose
Amunategui; but the last question that must have to be considered is whether after all, the title that
these two (2) private litigants have shown did not amount to a registerable one in view of the opposition
and evidence of the Director of Forestry; . . .
". . . turning back the clock thirty (30) years from 1955 when the application was filed which would place
it at 1925, the fact must have to be accepted that during that period, the land was a classified forest land
so much so that timber licenses had to be issued to certain licensee before 1926 and after that; that
even Jose Amunategui himself took the trouble to ask for a license to cut timber within the area; and this
can only mean that the Bureau of Forestry had stood and maintained its ground that it was a forest land
as indeed the testimonial evidence referred to above persuasively indicates, and the only time when the
property was converted into a fishpond was sometime after 1950; or a bare five (5) years before the
filing of the application; but only after there had been a previous warning by the District Forester that
that could not be done because it was classified as a public forest; so that having these in mind and
remembering that even under Republic Act 1942 which came into effect in 1957, two (2) years after this
case had already been filed in the lower Court, in order for applicant to be able to demonstrate a
registerable title he must have shown.
"‘open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for at least thirty (30) years, preceding the
filing of the application;’
the foregoing details cannot but justify the conclusion that not one of the applicants or oppositors had
shown that during the required period of thirty (30) years prescribed by Republic Act 1942 in order for
him to have shown a registerable title for the entire period of thirty (30) years before filing of the
application, he had been in
"‘open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain’,
it is evident that the Bureau of Forestry had insisted on its claim all throughout that period of thirty (30)
years and even before and applicants and their predecessors had made implicit recognition of that; the
result must be to deny all these applications; this Court stating that it had felt impelled notwithstanding,
just the same to resolve the conflicting positions of the private litigants among themselves as to who of
them had demonstrated a better right to possess because this Court foresees that this litigation will go all
the way to the Supreme Court and it is always better that the findings be as complete as possible to
enable the Highest Court to pass final judgment;
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision must have to be as it is hereby reversed; the application as well as all
the oppositions with the exception of that of the Director of Forestry which is hereby sustained are
dismissed; no more pronouncement as to costs."
cralaw virtua1aw library
A petition for review on certiorari was filed by the Heirs of Jose Amunategui contending that the disputed
lot had been in the possession of private persons for over thirty years and therefore in accordance with
Republic Act No. 1942, said lot could still be the subject of registration and confirmation of title in the
name of a private person in accordance with Act No. 496 known as the Land Registration Act. On the
other hand, another petition for review on certiorari was filed by Roque Borre and Encarnacion Delfin,
contending that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their complaint against
the Heirs of Jose Amunategui. The Borre complaint was for the annulment of the deed of absolute sale of
Lot No. 885 executed by them in favor of the Heirs of Amunategui. The complaint was dismissed on the
basis of the Court of Appeals’ decision that the disputed lot is part of the public domain. The petitioners
also question the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in passing upon the relative rights of the parties
over the disputed lot when its final decision after all is to declare said lot a part of the public domain
classified as forest land.
chanrobles law library : red
The need for resolving the questions raised by Roque Borre and Encarnacion Delfin in their petition
depends on the issue raised by the Heirs of Jose Amunategui, that is, whether or not Lot No. 885 is
public forest land, not capable of registration in the names of the private applicants.
The Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885 cannot be classified as forest land because it is
not thickly forested but is a "mangrove swamp." Although conceding that a "mangrove swamp" is
included in the classification of forest land in accordance with Section 1820 of the Revised Administrative
Code, the petitioners argue that no big trees classified in Section 1821 of said Code as first, second and
2/4
4/20/2018 G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY : NOVEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPI…
third groups are found on the land in question. Furthermore, they contend that Lot 885, even if it is a
211 Phil. 79 mangrove swamp, is still subject to land registration proceedings because the property had been in
actual possession of private persons for many years, and therefore, said land was already "private land"
G.R. No. L-51223 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by the public
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA interests to be kept under forest classification.
ECIJA, ET AL.

211 Phil. 97
The petition is without merit.

G.R. No. L-54242 November 25, 1983 - A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply
MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. RENE NIETO, ET AL. because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest
land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers.
211 Phil. 101 "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by
mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as
G.R. No. L-55436 November 25, 1983 - NICASIO forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
BORJE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released
in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of
211 Phil. 106 the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
G.R. No. L-55463 November 25, 1983 - ROBERTO V.
REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of Forestry v. Muñoz (23 SCRA 1184) that possession of
forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. And in Republic v. Animas (56
G.R. No. L-57518 November 25, 1983 - LUCAS SCRA 499), we granted the petition on the ground that the area covered by the patent and title was not
BARASI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. disposable public land, it being a part of the forest zone and any patent and title to said area is void ab
initio. It bears emphasizing that a positive act of Government is needed to declassify land which is
211 Phil. 138 classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.

G.R. No. L-58630 November 25, 1983 - SAN The findings of the Court of Appeals are particularly well-grounded in the instant petition.
MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. The fact that no trees enumerated in Section 1821 of the Revised Administrative Code are found in Lot
No. 885 does not divest such land of its being classified as forest land, much less as land of the public
211 Phil. 145
domain. The appellate court found that in 1912, the land must have been a virgin forest as stated by
G.R. No. L-60744 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF Emeterio Bereber’s witness Deogracias Gavacao, and that as late as 1926, it must have been a thickly
THE PHIL. v. GEORGE A. LUCES forested area as testified by Jaime Bertolde. The opposition of the Director of Forestry was strengthened
by the appellate court’s finding that timber licenses had to be issued to certain licensees and even Jose
211 Phil. 152 Amunategui himself took the trouble to ask for a license to cut timber within the area. It was only
sometime in 1950 that the property was converted into fishpond but only after a previous warning from
G.R. No. L-62032 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF the District Forester that the same could not be done because it was classified as "public forest." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DUMLAO

211 Phil. 159
G.R. No. L-62050 November 25, 1983 - JOSE
"PEPITO" TIMONER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
211 Phil. 166
G.R. No. L-62283 November 25, 1983 - CARIDAD
CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
211 Phil. 171
In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he meets the
requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942. He must
overcome the presumption that the land he is applying for is part of the public domain but that he has an
interest therein sufficient to warrant registration in his name because of an imperfect title such as those
derived from old Spanish grants or that he has had continuous, open, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership
for at least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of his application.
The decision of the appellate court is not based merely on the presumptions implicit in Commonwealth
Act No. 141 as amended. The records show that Lot No. 88S never ceased to be classified as forest land
of the public domain.

G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983 - In Republic v. Gonong (118 SCRA 729) we ruled: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M.

DAYRIT, ET AL.
211 Phil. 176
G.R. No. L-63318 November 25, 1983 - PHILIPPINE
CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL
"As held in Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, 75 Phil. 890, all lands that were not acquired from the
Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would
be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in-interests
since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been
part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest." cralaw virtua1aw library

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

In the instant petitions, the exception in the Oh Cho case does not apply. The evidence is clear that Lot
211 Phil. 180 No. 885 had always been public land classified as forest.

G.R. Nos. L-64207-08 November 25, 1983 - Similarly, in Republic v. Vera (120 SCRA 210), we ruled: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.
211 Phil. 187
G.R. No. L-40884 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CHAVEZ
". . . The possession of public land however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers
title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not
operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under
claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State. (Director of
Lands v. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177, 195)." cralaw virtua1aw library

211 Phil. 194 We, therefore, affirm the finding that the disputed property Lot No. 885 is part of the public domain,
classified as public forest land. There is no need for us to pass upon the other issues raised by petitioners
G.R. No. L-48273 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF Roque Borre and Encarnacion Delfin, as such issues are rendered moot by this finding. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

WHEREFORE, the petitions in G. R. No. L-30035 and G. R. No. L-27873 are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
211 Phil. 197 Costs against the petitioners.

G.R. Nos. L-62617-18 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE SO ORDERED.

OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO A. COLANA
Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur.
211 Phil. 216

G.R. No. L-63564 November 28, 1983 - JOB QUIAL Teehankee, J., concurs in the result.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 220

G.R. No. L-64013 November 28, 1983 - UNION

GLASS & CONTAINER CORP., ET AL. v. SECURITIES Back to Home | Back to Main
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

211 Phil. 222

QUICK SEARCH
A.M. No. 1812-CTJ November 29, 1983 - STEPHEN
L. MONSANTO v. POMPEYO L. PALARCA

211 Phil. 237

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
B.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983 - EUFROSINA YAP 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
211 Phil. 251 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF
JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1983novemberdecisions.php?id=535 3/4
4/20/2018 G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY : NOVEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPI…
G.R. No. L-30965 November 29, 1983 - G.A 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
MACHINERIES, INC. v. HORACIO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
211 Phil. 267 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

G.R. No. L-33243 November 29, 1983 - ISIDRO C. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
NERY, ET AL. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

211 Phil. 278 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. L-34036 November 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DIEGO ESTRADA, ET AL. 2013 2014 2015 2016

211 Phil. 282

G.R. No. L-35250 November 29, 1983 - MINERVA C.

GUERRERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 295

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. L-41971 November 29, 1983 - ZONIA ANA

T. SOLANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 307

G.R. No. L-44063 November 29, 1983 -

VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

211 Phil. 321

G.R. No. L-45461 November 29, 1983 - PONCIANO

L. ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 342

G.R. No. L-50259 November 29, 1983 -

FLORENTINO SALINAS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL R.
NAVARRO, ET AL.

211 Phil. 351

G.R. No. L-51533 November 29, 1983 - PAZ L.

MAKABALI v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

211 Phil. 357

G.R. Nos. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 -

ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, ET AL. v. NICANOR J. CRUZ,
JR., ET AL.

211 Phil. 373

G.R. No. L-55160 November 29, 1983 - INOCENTES

L. FERNANDEZ v. MANUEL S. ALBA

211 Phil. 380

G.R. No. L-57131 November 29, 1983 - ESTELITA

GRAVADOR v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 386

G.R. No. L-57314 November 29, 1983 - TEODORO

SANCHEZ v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

211 Phil. 389

G.R. No. L-62023 November 29, 1983 - G & S

CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 392

G.R. No. L-63277 November 29, 1983 - PETRA VDA.

DE BORROMEO v. JULIAN B. POGOY, ET AL.

211 Phil. 396

G.R. No. L-64809 November 29, 1983 - PHILIPPINE

AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

211 Phil. 402

G.R. No. L-65004 November 29, 1983 - PERFECTO

DEL ROSARIO, JR. v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO

211 Phil. 406

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1983novemberdecisions.php?id=535 4/4