Wong Boon Pin and Another v Wong Boon Wah and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 23 February 1989
• Date: 23 February 1989
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1208 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Wong Boon Pin and another

Plaintiff

and

Wong Boon Wah and others

Defendant

[1989] SGHC 17

Chan Sek Keong J

Originating Summons No 1208 of 1988

High Court

Land–Settlements–Testator leaving will devising residential property to foreigner–Whether devise null and void under Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed)–Whether compulsory sale of property and payment of proceeds to foreigner created unlawful trust–Sections 3 (1) (b), 3 (3), 3 (4) and 3 (10) Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed)–Succession and Wills–Capacity to benefit under–Testator leaving will devising residential property to foreigner–Whether devise null and void under Residential Property Act–Section 3 Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed)–Section 19 Wills Act (Cap 352, 1985 Rev Ed)

The testator died leaving a will in which he devised his immovable property to his wife, a foreigner. The executors of the testator's estate sold the property three years after the wife's death. The issue before the court was whether the proceeds of sale of the property belonged to the testator's estate or the wife's estate.

Counsel for the testator's estate argued that the devise of the property to the wife was null and void because: (a) under s 3 (3) of the Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the RPA”) read with s 19 of the Wills Act (Cap 352, 1985 Rev Ed), the devise of residential property to a foreign person could not take effect; and (b) s 3 (4) of the RPA provided for the compulsory sale of the property and payment of the proceeds to a foreign person. This created a trust for sale in favour of a foreign person and was unlawful under s 3 (1) (b) of the RPA.

Held, declaring that the proceeds belonged to the wife's estate:

(1) Section 19 of the Wills Act did not lay down the conditions upon which a devise would become unlawful or contrary to law. It merely provided for the consequences of a devise which failed or was void for any of the reasons stated therein. As such, s 19 was irrelevant for purposes of determining the legal effect of s 3 of the RPA on the devise of residential property to a foreign person: at [6].

(2) Section 3 (3) of the RPA did not make it unlawful for a testator to devise residential property to a foreign person. It simply made it legally impossible for such a devise since no estate or interest in any residential property should pass by bequest, succession or inheritance to any foreign person. However, s 3 (4) and s 3 (10) of the RPA provided that the property should be sold and proceeds paid to the devisee. A devise of a residential property to a foreign person took effect as a trust for sale under the RPA: at [7].

(3) The above conclusion completely undermined the argument that a trust for sale was...