When Family and Property Collide: Court Determines Beneficial Ownership and Constructive Trusts Over 26 Properties

Family property disputes can be emotionally charged and complex to untangle or resolve, as shown in the recent High Court decision of Jenny Prawesti v Sauw Tjiauw Koe [2025] SGHC 209 (“Jenny Prawesti“).

The dispute in Jenny Prawesti arose between a mother and daughter over the ownership of 26 properties in Singapore. At the heart of the dispute was a deceivingly straightforward question: when properties are bought in the names of multiple family members, who is the true beneficial owner of the properties?

The High Court’s decision offers important lessons and insights on how such disputes would be resolved and should be closely examined, especially by all family or trust practitioners.

The defendant mother was successfully represented by Adrian Wong (Head, Dispute Resolution Group), Ang Leong Hao (Partner, Commercial Litigation) and Sia Bao Huei (Associate, Commercial Litigation) of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.

Background Facts

The plaintiff (“Daughter“) and the defendant (“Mother“) are part of an Indonesian-Chinese family and were originally based in Indonesia. Around 1986, the Mother relocated to Singapore with her three children, including the Daughter. From 1987 to 2000, the Mother received a monthly allowance from her husband of about US$100,000 to maintain the family. From 2000, the allowance increased to US$47,000 a week.

From the late 1990s, the Mother started investing extensively in Singapore properties. For the period up until 2002, the Mother bought nine properties in her own name. In 2002, the Mother began investing in properties in Singapore in the names of herself, the Daughter, and/or her youngest son (“Son“).

Between 2002 and 2012, the family acquired 26 Singapore properties (“26 Properties“), which are summarised as follows:

• The Centrepoint Property (purchased in 2002): This property was registered under the names of the Mother and the Daughter as joint tenants.
  
  
• 24 properties (purchased between 2005 – 2007): These properties were registered randomly, with no discernible pattern or logic. The majority of these 24 properties were registered as tenancies‑in‑common with the Mother registered as a 90% co-owner, with the remaining interest held by the Daughter and the Son as 1% and 9% co-owners, respectively. However, there were variations in the manner of registration, including a few properties registered as joint tenancies among the three co-owners.
  
  
• The Hawaii Tower Property (purchased in 2012): This was registered under the names of the Son and the Daughter as joint tenants.

The Daughter executed four powers of attorney (“POAs“) allowing the Mother to act on her behalf to purchase Singapore properties jointly with another person or solely in the Daughter’s name. The Mother used the various POAs to manage and refinance some of the 26 Properties. The Mother also executed a Letter of Indemnity (“LOI“) indemnifying the Daughter against all losses from properties purchased in the Daughter’s name.

In the Court proceedings, the Daughter claimed that she was entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in all 26 Properties and sought an account for all actions by the Mother in relation to the 26 Properties. The Daughter’s claim was made based on an alleged promise, made by the Mother when the Centrepoint Property was purchased, that they would purchase properties together as equal owners in the future (“Alleged Promise“). By reason of the Alleged Promise, the Daughter asserted that there was a common intention constructive trust (“CICT“) over the 26 Properties, which entitled her to 50% of the beneficial interests in the 26 Properties.

In response, the Mother denied making the Alleged Promise. Instead, the Mother counterclaimed that the Daughter (and the Son, as the case may be) held their registered interests in the 26 Properties on trust for her. It was the Mother’s case that she had always maintained full control over the 26 Properties and had merely “borrowed” their names for convenience and/or to help her manage her property investments. It was also the Mother’s case that she had been solely responsible for all the financial contributions towards the 26 Properties. To this end, the Mother advanced her counterclaims based on an express trust, CICT, and/or resulting trust. The Mother also claimed against the Daughter for the rental income from the Hawaii Tower Property.

Separate from the 26 Properties, the Mother had set up a company (“ST Travel“), of which 1% of shares were held by the Daughter (“Shares“). The Mother claimed that the Daughter held the Shares on trust for the Mother, while the Daughter claimed they were gifted to her in consideration for the Daughter’s agreement to work for and manage ST Travel.

Beneficial Ownership of the Properties

The Court held that no express trust was created by the LOI as it lacked the requisite certainty of intention and certainty of subject matter to create an express trust. The LOI was unilaterally signed by the Mother, and did not evince the Daughter’s intention to declare a trust over her interests in the properties. The Court also found that the LOI did not identify any specific properties that would be subject to the purported express trust.

As for parties’ arguments regarding a CICT, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence of an express common intention on both the Mother’s and the Daughter’s cases.

1. In relation to the Daughter’s case, the Court noted that the Daughter had only asserted the existence of the Alleged Promise about a year and a half after commencing proceedings against the Mother. The Court also noted that the Daughter’s case had evolved over the course of the proceedings, and eventually found that the Daughter had not made the Alleged Promise.
   
   
2. As for the Mother’s case, the Court found that her reasons for “borrowing” the Daughter’s name were also insufficiently compelling.

The Court then considered whether there was an inferred common intention that established a CICT or a resulting trust.

1. Centrepoint Property: The Court found that the parties had contributed financially in almost equal amounts. On this basis, the beneficial interest was consistent with how their interests were registered. However, it was inequitable for the Daughter to demand an account of her share of the rental proceeds. On the Daughter’s own case, she had agreed to the Mother keeping the rental proceeds on the understanding that the Mother would be responsible for mortgage payments and other costs relating to the Centrepoint Property, and had not ever asked for rental proceeds to be paid to her since the Centrepoint Property was acquired in 2002.
   
   
2. Remaining 25 properties: The Court found that there was an inferred common intention trust over the remaining 25 properties in favour of the Mother. This was so as the Mother had paid for these properties without the Daughter’s assistance and maintained unilateral and absolute control over them. The Court also found that the LOI was a strong piece of evidence in the Mother’s favour, as she took on liability for any loss incurred in respect of the purchase of properties. The Court also accepted the Mother’s explanation for excluding herself as a legal owner for the Hawaii Tower Property, namely that she wanted to see how the Daughter and the Son would fare managing one property investment on their own. However, as evidence emerged at trial showing that the banks had sometimes deducted sums from the Daughter’s personal bank account for payment of the mortgage, the Court ordered that the Mother reimburse those sums to the Daughter.

For the same reasons, there was an actual resulting trust in favour of the Mother over the remaining 25 properties.

Beneficial Ownership of the Shares

The Court accepted the Daughter’s evidence that the Shares were given to her for doing work for ST Travel. In any event, the presumption of advancement would operate between mother and child to presume that the Shares were a gift which belonged beneficially to the Daughter.

Concluding Words

The Court’s decision offers practical guidance for family and trust practitioners on how beneficial ownership will be determined when properties are registered in multiple family members’ names. Where parties intend to record an express trust arrangement, they should unequivocally specify such intent and state the subject matter in a written trust deed or declaration. Practitioners should also advise their clients to keep methodical records of all documentation in relation to the payment (including whom such payments were made by), mortgage and sale of properties.