Gunawan v Lesmana: Division of Property, Presumption of Advancement, and Resulting Trusts

Djony Gunawan appealed against the High Court's decision to grant Christina Lesmana's application for the sale of the Seaview Property and the dismissal of his application for a declaration that he was the sole beneficial owner. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the presumption of advancement applied and was not rebutted by Mr. Gunawan. The court ordered costs in favour of Ms. Lesmana.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning the division of the Seaview Property. The court considered the presumption of advancement and resulting trusts in determining beneficial ownership.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Djony GunawanAppellant, Claimant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Christina LesmanaRespondent, Defendant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Kannan RameshJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Abdul Wahab bin Saul HamidAW Law LLC
Muhammad Hasif bin Abdul AzizAW Law LLC
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Johannes HadiEugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Gunawan and Ms. Lesmana were married in 1995 and divorced in 2013.
  2. The Seaview Property was purchased in 2007, with Mr. Gunawan initially as the sole purchaser.
  3. In 2009, Ms. Lesmana's name was added to the certificate of title as a joint tenant.
  4. Mr. Gunawan paid the entire purchase price for the Seaview Property.
  5. Ms. Lesmana did not contribute financially to the purchase of the Seaview Property.
  6. Ms. Lesmana was a housewife throughout the marriage and financially dependent on Mr. Gunawan.
  7. Mr. Gunawan's 2017 statement indicated his love for Ms. Lesmana and the transfer was to ensure her financial security.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Djony Gunawan v Christina Lesmana and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 115 of 2023 and 116 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 14

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Gunawan and Ms. Lesmana were married in Indonesia.
The Seaview Property was purchased with Mr. Gunawan exercising the option to purchase.
Ms. Lesmana's name was added to the certificate of title of the Seaview Property as a joint tenant.
Mr. Gunawan and Ms. Lesmana divorced in Indonesia.
Ms. Lesmana filed OSF 101 in the Family Justice Courts of Singapore.
Ms. Lesmana commenced OSF 124 for sale of the Seaview Property.
Mr. Gunawan filed CA 169 to appeal against the decision in RAS 10.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in CA 169.
Mr. Gunawan’s mother commenced OS 1207 to claim the Seaview Property.
OS 1207 was dismissed.
Ms. Lesmana filed OS 1095.
Ms. Lesmana withdrew OSF 124.
Mr. Gunawan filed OA 713.
The Judge ruled in favor of Ms. Lesmana and ordered the Seaview Property to be sold.
Hearing date.
Grounds of decision delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court held that the presumption of advancement applied and was not rebutted by Mr. Gunawan.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  2. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of resulting trust applied initially but was displaced by the presumption of advancement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  3. Beneficial Ownership of Property
    • Outcome: The court determined that Ms. Lesmana held a 50% beneficial interest in the Seaview Property as a joint tenant.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Sale of Property
  2. Division of Sale Proceeds
  3. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Sale in Lieu of Partition
  • Declaration of Sole Beneficial Ownership

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Appeals
  • Property Disputes
  • Family Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited as the default analytical tool for resolving property disputes in the absence of evidence of common intention.
Stack v DowdenN/AYes[2007] 2 AC 432United KingdomMentioned in commentary on Chan Yuen Lan.
Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth and others v Ng Choong Keong StevenGeneral Division of the High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 343SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the application of the Chan Yuen Lan framework.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the two-stage test when the application of the presumption of resulting trust and the presumption of advancement are raised.
UFN v UFM and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 650SingaporeObserved that Ms Lesmana may be entitled to apply for a sale and partition of the property.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Presumption of Advancement
  • Resulting Trust
  • Joint Tenancy
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Seaview Property
  • Gratuitous Transfer
  • Matrimonial Asset

15.2 Keywords

  • property
  • trust
  • family
  • divorce
  • ownership
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law90
Trusts and Estates80
Property Law75
Presumption of Advancement70
Resulting Trusts70
Joint Tenancy65
Evidence Law60
Civil Procedure50
Judgments and Orders40

16. Subjects

  • Property Law
  • Trust Law
  • Family Law
  • Real Estate