Moh Ah Kiu v Central Provident Fund Board and Other Appeals

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeGoh Joon Seng J
Judgment Date01 August 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGCA 50
Docket NumberCivil Appeals Nos 121 of 1989, 126 of 1989 and 127 of 1989
Date01 August 1992
Year1992
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselKelvin Chia (Chor Pee & Co)
Citation[1992] SGCA 50
Defendant CounselTan Hin Tat (Sim Hill Tan & Wong)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterCPF savings withdrawn by member to buy property,Member having breached CPF regulation,Whether presumption of marriage arose,Repayment of moneys to Central Provident Fund Board,ss 21(1), (10), 24(e) & 77 Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1991 Ed),Long period of cohabitation,Whether breach entitles CPF Board to demand repayment of CPF savings of deceased member,Regulations 1982 regs 11(1), 20(1) & (3) Central Provident Fund (Approved Residential Properties Scheme),Whether CPF savings withdrawn ceased to be repayable to CPF Board,Whether CPF charge on property can be cancelled,Reputation of being husband and wife,No legal marriage performed,Validity,Death of member,Family Law,ss 4(1), 5(1), 11, 21 & 23 Women's Charter (Cap 353)

Cur Adv Vult

These three appeals are related and arise from the two orders made by Wee Chong Jin CJ on 1 November 1989 in Originating Summons Nos 1233 of 1988 and 653 of 1989 respectively. The material facts that led to these appeals are briefly these.

On 26 March 1960 Choe Inn Hock (`Choe`) married one Lily Foong Siew Yook at the Wesley Methodist Church in Singapore in accordance with the Christian Marriage Ordinance, and their marriage was duly registered in accordance with s 30 of that Ordinance.
They had one son, Jeffrey Choe Wei Hoong. Their marriage, however, was not a happy one; since 22 November 1970 Choe had lived separately and apart from Lily Foong. Sometime in 1975 a Chinese customary marriage was celebrated between Choe and one Moh Ah Kiu (`Moh`) in Penang. Following the customary marriage, Choe and Moh cohabited at Block 31, Dover Road, #11-109, Singapore 0513, together with Moh`s own two children, Julie Som and Rayman Som. On 24 August 1978 Choe commenced divorce proceedings against Lily Foong, and on 10 October 1979 a decree nisi dissolving the marriage between Choe and Lily Foong was granted by the High Court of Singapore in Divorce No 712 of 1978. On 15 January 1980 the decree was made absolute. Thereafter, apparently no step was taken by Choe and Moh to have a marriage between them solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere. However, they continued to cohabit as husband and wife.

On 4 June 1986 Choe and Moh entered into an agreement for the purchase of a property known as Block 10R, Braddel Hill, #02-80, Braddel View Estate, Singapore 2057 (`the property`) at the price of $200,000.
On signing the agreement, they paid to the vendors the sum of $20,000 as deposit and to account of the purchase price. They intended to pay the balance sum partly from their respective savings and partly from the credit balances of their accounts with the Central Provident Fund Board (`the CPF Board`). On or about 23 June 1986 Choe and Moh submitted to the CPF Board a joint application for withdrawal of their respective savings (`CPF savings`) to purchase the property. Under reg 11(1) of the Central Provident Fund (Approved Residential Properties Scheme) Regulations 1982 (`the CPF Regulations`), a member is only entitled to apply for withdrawal of money under these regulations for the joint purchase of residential property if his relationship with the co-purchaser or co-owner of the property falls within one of five categories described therein and one such relationship is that of husband and wife. In their application Choe and Moh declared their relationship to be that of `husband/wife`. Their application was approved by the CPF Board, and by its letter of 30 June 1986 the CPF Board allowed them to withdraw from their CPF savings the following sums:

(a) $148,000 for payment to the vendors of the property, and

(b) $6,000 for payment of outstanding survey and valuation fees, stamp duty, legal costs and other disbursements connected with their application.



The purchase of the property was completed on 19 September 1986, and on completion the CPF Board released and paid out from the CPF savings of Choe and Moh the sum of $153,549 comprising:

(a) a sum of $148,000 to the vendors, and

(b) a sum of $5,549 to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties in part payment of the stamp duty payable on the transfer.



The balance of the purchase price was paid out of their other savings.
The property was transferred to Choe and Moh as joint tenants. Under s 21(1) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1991 Ed) (`the CPF Act`) a charge on the property came into existence to secure the repayment of moneys withdrawn by Choe and Moh including interest that would have accrued thereto if the withdrawal had not been made. Accordingly, an application to notify the charge No A/HB661 (`the charge`) on the property in favour of the CPF Board was duly lodged with the Registry of Titles.

Unfortunately, Choe`s enjoyment of his acquisition was short-lived; he died on 19 August 1987, which was only 11 months after the completion of the purchase of the property.
By virtue of the joint tenancy, the property upon his death accrued entirely to Moh as the surviving joint tenant. Her solicitors, by a letter dated 22 September 1987, asked the CPF Board for the duplicate lease No 1/HUDC 4215 relating to the property to enable Moh to apply to have the death of Choe notified in the land register pursuant to s 103 of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157). At that stage, however, the CPF Board had received information from Jeffrey Choe Wei Hoong (the lawful son of Choe by Lily Foong) that Choe and Moh had not been legally married at all material times. After making their own investigations, the CPF Board rejected Moh`s request for the duplicate lease and initiated proceedings against both Moh and Jeffrey Choe Wei Hoong in OS No 1233 of 1988 in the High Court seeking, inter alia, the following declarations:

(a) a declaration as to whether on 23 June 1986, when Choe and Moh jointly applied to withdraw their CPF savings, there was a valid and subsisting marriage between Choe and Moh;

(b) if there was no valid marriage on that date, a declaration that Choe and Moh had in their joint application dated 23 June 1986 misrepresented to the CPF Board that they were married; and

(c) a declaration that by virtue of cll 2(f) and 5 of the memorandum of mortgage filed in the Registry of Titles as MM458 and reg 11(1)(a) of the CPF Regulations, all moneys withdrawn by Choe and Moh from their CPF savings, including the interest that would have accrued thereto if such withdrawal had not been made, forthwith became due and payable to the CPF Board.



While the originating summons was pending, Moh, through her solicitors, applied to the CPF Board for cancellation of the charge on the property so far as it concerned the withdrawal of Choe`s CPF savings.
That request, however, was not acceded to, and thereupon Moh instituted fresh proceedings in OS No 653 of 1989, seeking a cancellation of the charge so far as it concerned the withdrawal of CPF savings of Choe.

Both the originating summonses came on for hearing before Wee Chong Jin CJ on 11 November 1989.
At the conclusion of the hearing, he made the following orders. First, in respect of OS No 1233 of 1988, the Chief Justice made (i) a declaration that on 23 June 1986 (the date when Choe and Moh applied jointly for withdrawal of their respective CPF savings to purchase the property) there was no valid and subsisting marriage between Choe and Moh, and (ii) a declaration that all moneys withdrawn by Choe from his CPF account for the purchase of the property and secured by the charge ceased to be payable to the CPF Board by virtue of reg 20(3) of the CPF Regulations; he also ordered the CPF Board to pay the costs of Moh. Second, in respect of OS No 653 of 1989, the learned Chief Justice ordered that the registration or notification of the charge be cancelled so far as it concerned the withdrawal of Choe`s CPF savings and that the costs of the application and of the cancellation of the registration or notification be paid by the CPF Board.

The CPF Board appealed against the second declaration made in OS No 1233 of 1988 and against the entire order made in OS No 653 of 1989 in Civil Appeal Nos 126 and 127 of 1989.
Moh, on the other hand, appealed against the first declaration made in OS No 1233 of 1988 in Civil Appeal No 121 of 1989. Jeffrey Choe Wei Hoong, however, did not appeal against any part of the order made in OS No 1233 of 1988. All the three appeals were heard together, and principally, there are only two issues before us:

(a) whether there was a valid and subsisting marriage between Choe and Moh on 23 June 1986 (`the material date`), this being the date when they submitted the joint application to the CPF Board for withdrawal of their respective CPF savings to purchase the property; and

(b) if there was no such marriage, whether the moneys withdrawn by Choe, including interest that would have accrued thereto if such withdrawal had not been made, became due and payable to the CPF Board.



On the first issue, there was no dispute that in 1975 when Choe and Moh went through the Chinese customary marriage in Penang, Choe was still legally married to Lily Foong.
At that time, therefore, Choe had no legal capacity to contract a marriage, and the Chinese customary marriage...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT