The marriage took place before changes to the law dictated that marriages of convenience solemnised on or after Oct 1, 2016 are void.
SINGAPORE: The Vietnamese wife of a man who died without a will in Singapore stands to inherit half of his estate, despite the fact that their marriage was one of convenience.
This is because the couple married in 2011, before changes to law dictated that marriages of convenience solemnised on or after Oct 1, 2016 are void. The relevant law cannot be applied retrospectively, the Court of Appeal found on Wednesday (Oct 21).
The decision was a split one where Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon disagreed with the eventual outcome but Justices Debbie Ong and Ang Cheng Hock agreed.
The only son of the deceased man had sought an order from the High Court to declare the short marriage void and exclude the woman from any share in the estate.
THE CASE
The deceased, Mr Cheng Meng Koon, married Vietnamese national Ms Dang Lan Anh on Jan 26, 2011.
Mr Cheng never mentioned his marriage to any family member, even though he was close to them, the court heard.
It was his second marriage, as he had divorced his first wife.
Mr Cheng did not live with Ms Dang nor did he move out to live with her. Instead, he continued living with his sister.
Shortly before marrying Ms Dang, Mr Cheng had been relapsing into drug addiction and suffered financial hardship.
He was also being harassed by loan sharks.
However, during his period of being married to Ms Dang, the harassment ceased, although it was unclear to the family how he had paid off his debts.
Mr Cheng fell terminally ill with cancer and died less than a year after the marriage.
Ms Dang provided no support and made no contact with his family, remaining entirely absent during Mr Cheng's hospitalisation.
Mr Cheng also made no mention of her, even on his deathbed, the judgment read.
He died intestate, or without a valid will, in January 2012.
His assets primarily comprise his 14 per cent share in a Housing Board flat and money in his Central Provident Fund (CPF).
The family learnt of the marriage to Ms Dang through a letter in March 2012 from the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office (IPTO).
The letter informed them that Ms Dang was entitled to a portion of Mr Cheng's CPF monies, as his wife.
The family had no information about Ms Dang and IPTO placed a notice in The Straits Times to seek information on Ms Dang and her whereabouts, but no such information could be obtained.
The family was later informed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority in July 2024 that Ms Dang had been deported for immigration offences in 2011.
Mr Cheng's son, Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen, in October 2024 sought a declaration that the marriage was void as it was a sham marriage or a marriage of convenience.
He wanted to exclude Ms Dang from any share in his father's estate.
When his application failed due to the lack of legal basis in the Women's Charter to declare such a marriage void, he lodged an appeal.
APPEAL COURT FINDINGS
Two of the judges who heard the appeal, Justices Ang and Ong, found that the court cannot declare a marriage void on a ground other than those provided for in the Women's Charter.
These grounds do not include annulling a marriage because it is entered into with motives some might consider improper.
The Women's Charter clearly sets out the public policy from Oct 1, 2016 onwards, but nothing suggested that this was also the policy before that date, the judges found.
The criminalisation of acts arising from marriages of convenience does not on its own affect the validity of the marriage itself, they found.
They dismissed the appeal, saying there was no basis for declaring the marriage void.
However, the court made no ruling on the administration or distribution of the deceased's estate, as those issues were not part of the appeal.
In a minority decision, Chief Justice Menon said that the marriage between Mr Cheng and Ms Dang should be declared void, because it was not solemnised on the authority of a valid marriage licence within the meaning of the Women's Charter 2020.
He said he would have allowed the appeal and declared that the marriage was void because it was not solemnised on the authority of a valid marriage licence within the meaning provided for in the Women's Charter 2009.
However, because his view was in the minority, the appeal was dismissed.