Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong: Resulting Trusts, Tenancy in Common & Land Interest Dispute

In the case of Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 31 January 2023, the court addressed a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a property. The plaintiff, Cheng Ao, claimed that his mother, the defendant Yong Njo Siong, held her share of a property on resulting trust for him. Yong Njo Siong counterclaimed, arguing that Cheng Ao held his share of the property on resulting trust for her and that he was liable for the balance of her share of funds from the sale of a family business. The court dismissed Cheng Ao's claim and granted Yong Njo Siong's counterclaim for a declaration that she is the sole beneficial owner of the property, while dismissing her counterclaim regarding the remaining funds.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A property dispute arose between a son and mother over a property purchased with funds from the sale of a family business. The court found in favor of the mother.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Cheng AoPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Yong Njo SiongDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Phyllis Wong Shi TingInfinitus Law Corporation
Ng Khai LeeInfinitus Law Corporation
Wong Soo ChihSC Wong Law Chambers LLC
Ho Shing Chian JulianaSC Wong Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. Satrio expressed his wishes concerning the distribution of funds from the sale of a business.
  2. Satrio allocated RMB12.75m to Mdm Yong from the sale of Inhwa Qingdao.
  3. Cheng and Mdm Yong purchased the Disputed Unit as tenants in common in equal shares.
  4. Cheng effected all the payments concerning the Disputed Unit.
  5. The 6/12/11 Email indicated that the purchase of the Disputed Unit was to come from Mdm Yong’s share of the Moneys.
  6. Mdm Yong believed that the Disputed Unit was purchased for her by way of Satrio’s making general provision for her.
  7. Satrio made decisions for and ultimately controlled the finances of the family.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong, Suit No 78 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Satrio purchased an apartment at King’s Mansion
Cheng joined Inhwa Xiamen
Cheng was promoted to Deputy General Manager of Inhwa Xiamen
Satrio incorporated Inhwa Tile Products Ltd (Qingdao)
Cheng served as Deputy General Manager of Inhwa Qingdao
Bai lived in King’s Mansion
Cheng moved to Singapore
Cheng purchased an apartment at Tropical Spring
Chen was appointed Deputy General Manager of Inhwa Xiamen
Cheng ceased being Deputy General Manager of Inhwa Xiamen and Inhwa Qingdao
Equity Transfer Agreement was signed
Satrio expressed his intention to distribute the moneys in a handwritten note
Cheng and Mdm Yong jointly exercised the option to purchase the Disputed Unit
Cheng sent an email to Chen regarding the Moneys
Jourdan obtained two cashier’s orders from DBS and issued them to the sellers of the Disputed Unit
Cheng and Mdm Yong were registered as tenants in common in equal shares
A portion of Mdm Yong’s share of the Moneys was transferred to Satrio
Satrio wrote a letter to Cheng asking for his share of the Moneys
Satrio wrote a letter to Cheng asking for his share of the Moneys
Cheng sent an email to Chen
Mdm Yong and Satrio lived at the Disputed Unit after permanently moving to Singapore
Satrio passed away
Mdm Yong’s solicitors wrote a letter to Cheng stating that Mdm Yong wished to sever the joint tenancy associated with the Disputed Unit
Statement of Claim was dated
Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) was dated
Bai Yun’s AEIC and Suryanti’s AEIC were dated
Cheng Ao’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief was dated
Yong Njo Siong’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief and Chen Sie’s AEIC were dated
Plaintiff’s Opening Statement was dated
Hearing took place
Hearing took place
Hearing took place
Hearing took place
Hearing took place
Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions and Defendant’s Closing Submissions were dated
Hearing took place
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that Cheng Ao held his share of the Disputed Unit on resulting trust for Mdm Yong.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Presumption of resulting trust
      • Rebutting the presumption of resulting trust
      • Beneficial ownership of property
  2. Express Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the evidence did not establish an express trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Certainty of intention
      • Certainty of subject matter
      • Certainty of objects
  3. Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that circumstances had not been shown that compel the imposition of a constructive trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unconscionability
      • Fiduciary duty

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  2. Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Resulting Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Property Law
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the requirements for the creation of an express trust and the nature of a constructive trust.
Koh Lian Chye and another v Koh Ah Leng and another and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 69SingaporeCited for the presumption of resulting trust when a transferor pays for property in the name of another party.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not rely on the presumption of resulting trust when the evidence adequately reveals the true intentions of the transferor.
Zaiton bte Adom v Nafsiah bte Wagiman and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 189SingaporeCited for the principle that an institutional constructive trust arises by operation of law.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting Trust
  • Tenants in Common
  • Express Trust
  • Constructive Trust
  • Moneys
  • Disputed Unit
  • Inhwa Qingdao
  • Inhwa Xiamen
  • 6/12/11 Email

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • property
  • land
  • resulting trust
  • tenancy in common
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law90
Tenancy in Common85
Property Law75
Succession Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Land Law