Severance of Joint Tenancy in Singapore: A Proposal for Reform

The assignment content discusses the four unities rule in regards to severance of joint tenancy, specifically focusing on unilateral severance and its effects on survivorship rights among co-owners. It highlights the difficulties in achieving secret severance without knowledge of other co-owners, which can result in hardship for surviving joint tenants. The report recommends amendments to the Land Title Act to provide order and clarity in regards to severance, notice, and registration of serving instruments. Additionally, it proposes allowing co-owners to agree on a non-severable joint tenancy with survivorship.

Introduction
In the area of estate law, joint tenancy refers to a special type of ownership of a same property by
two or more individuals. In such a situation they equally share the ownership of the property and
have the equal and undivided right to keep or dispose of the property. The joint tenancy provides
a right of survivorship on account of which if in case any of the joint tenants dies, the remaining
share of that tenant is allowed to transfer to the survivors (Marti, 1957).
Since a lot of citizens in Singapore co-own their lands or houses, a few of them, however, are
aware that there could be more possible ways in which the legal papers of co-ownership can be
drawn up. As a matter of excitement of being co-owners, many of them take things for granted
and end up undermining their ownership status. Like many other things, the status of ownership
goes to the backburner in their lives (Crown, 1998).
When it comes to joint tenancy, the co-owners are wholly entitled to the whole of the property.
The statement seems to be not making a complete sense. Nevertheless, it means, for
example, a husband owns 100% and his wife also owns 100% of the property. It also goes on to
suggest that, being the wholly entitled of ownership of the property, the owners also possess the
right of survivorship. Also, the situation can get complicated if the co-owners contribute
unequally during the purchase of the property or land or house. So, the question that arises at this
point in time that in the event of dispute over ownership share, should the party that contributed
more, claim more?
The following report tries to analyze various aspects of joint tenancy laws and the severance of
joint tenancy in Singapore. This project draws a comparative analysis between joint tenancy and
tenancy in common and lay out their distinction in their application in relation to the Transfer of
Property Act (UK), 1882, since, Singapore law on severance is similar to that of UK's. We will
also attempt to put across some of the necessary reforms in the joint tenancy laws, on account of
which the different parties will stand to be benefitting from them.
Prevalence of Tenancy laws and their Implications in Singapore
In Singapore, there are primarily two forms of co-ownership that is being recognized in law.
These are Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common. Though they would seem similar in certain
respect, but are inherently different and the nature of ownership and the rights as well as
subsequent would significantly differ according to the nature of co-ownership ("One for All and
All for One - Responsibilities of Directors", n.d.).
Under the joint tenancy law, two or more owners have rights with regards to the property as if
they were a single owner. So, if one of the parties having the joint tenancy dies his or her share
automatically passes on equally to the remaining parties. However, a fundamental principle that
is a key requirement for the joint tenancy is the unity of the ownership. So, with this provision,
the following four types of unities will have to be observed:
- The first one is unity of time, according to which, the ownership is to be acquired by each
and every tenant at the same time. Secondly, unit of title, on account of which if all the
concerned parties elect to adopt a joint tenancy then all of them will have to be named as

joint tenants in the same title deed. Thirdly, unity of interest, which simply refers to the fact
that all of the tenants own equal shares in the property. For example, if five people are under
joint tenancy, then each of them possess 20% share in the property. Unity of possession, with
which all the tenants have equal rights to access and possession.
Having described the four unities being observed in a joint tenancy, there are equally four ways
by which a joint tenancy can be ceased:
- In the event of any one of the tenants opts to sell his or her share in the property to any other
party, then the situation comes under termination by alienation. The second condition of
cease of joint tenancy is when there is a mutual agreement to partition off the joint tenancy.
Thirdly, when a court gives an order to sell partition off the joint tenancy. Lastly, with the
help of a unilateral deed of declaration made by a joint tenant who needed to severe the joint
tenancy ("Singapore - Joint Tenancy - An Independent Doctrine Of Ownership Or Merely A
Tenancy In Common In-Waiting? | Conventus Law", 2016).
While most of the co-owners of Singapore prefer joint tenancy, it is not necessarily a better
option at all. This is because of the fact that the other type of co-ownership, that is, tenancy-in-
common lays down the specific terms of co-ownerships that are spelt out prior to the deed is
signed.
As per the law of tenancy in common, the owners of the property possess it by holding shares.
These shares can be of equal or unequal percentage. Meanwhile, every tenant in common can opt
to sell off or mortgage his or her shares without necessarily having a consultation with the others.
In such a scenario, the tenancy is not destroyed, rather the new owner becomes a tenant-in-
common.
In practice, tenancies are said to have arose when three circumstance are met. The most common
is the one, which is prescribed under the law. A striking example of this tenancy is to consider a
condominium where are all of the subsidiary proprietors (SPs) are regarded as tenants-in-
common when the common property of a sub-divided building is being talked about. Another
scenario under which a tenancy-in-common is being created is the situation when parties
contribute money in unequal amounts or shares in order to purchase the property. As a matter of
fact, if a deed doesn’t specify as to which form of ownership the parties are taking title, then it
can be agreed that it is tenancy-in-common ("Joint ownership in Singapore and unequal
contributions to purchase price | SingaporeLegalAdvice.com", 2012).
A tenancy-in-common can be ceased in certain ways. The first one is when the parties choose to
do so voluntarily. The second one is when one or more than one tenants move to the court and
ask to cease the ownership and divide the property. The third situation is when the laws have to
step in, such as the situation when the landlords become bankrupt and the property is foreclosed.
Therefore, the advantage of tenants-in-common, as being pointed out earlier, is that the co-
owners can specify their own terms prior to their jointly buying of a property.
Now, if an individual chooses to go for a tenancy-in-common, he will require to inform his
lawyers well in advance so that he could draw up a necessary draft. Even among the married

couples, tenancy-in-common provides in the event of death for one partner to dispose his or her
portion as per his or her will. This is contrary to the joint tenancies where the rule of ownerships
steps in, ensuring that the surviving party automatically inherits the property.
For the purpose of Conversion of Manner of Holding, a law came into force in March 1994,
according to which, the tenants-in-common having equal shares as well as joint tenants were
allowed to convert their manner of holding into a joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common in equal
shares in respective measures by making a declaration in the form laid down under the Land
Titles Act (Cap. 157). This declaration by the tenants can be registered at the Singapore Land
Registry.
Now, in the situation of disputes, the highest court of Singapore has implemented a stage test. It
will be only for the Court to determine if the presumption of resulting trust arose. So, the party
that provided more contribution is needed to give evidence in the form of transaction records or
CPF payments, proving that the party actually paid more. If the condition is met, the parties
would be presumed to hold the property as per their ration of their contribution. However, this
presumption can be challenged either by contrary evidence or by the presumption of
advancement.
As far as contrary evidences are concerned, they include recorded agreements on the part of the
co-owners in terms of their proof of joint tenancy in equal shares despite unequal contributions.
The presumption of advancement is given consideration when the parties involved are in a
familial relationship. If the existence of such relations is established, the law presumes that the
parties have the intention of holding the property jointly and equally. Such type of relationships
are primarily seen between husband and wife, or sometimes parent and child. So, a lot would
depend upon the strength and the nature of the relationship (Tan, 2002).
The above situation shows that even if there are two names on a registry, it cannot be construed
that the ownership would be interpreted absolutely inflexibly. But other factors would be taken
into consideration as well. However, it is also important to note that the laws are liable to change
and, therefore, the above arguments does not fully constitute a legal advice and may not always
be relevant to any specific situation.
Joint Tenancy Case laws and Litigations in Singapore
In a case of Neo Boh Tan v Ng Kim Whatt 5 [2000] SGHC 31 at [11], the court observed that
the Equity has an inclination towards tenancy-in-common in given circumstances because of the
inherent unfairness regarding the right of survivorship, which is obtained in the situation of a
joint tenancy. For an instant, when A and B have made a contribution to the purchase price of the
property in unequal amounts of shares or they have lent money on mortgage or for that
matter are business partners but the conveyance does not include any word of severance, then in
terms of law, there would be joint tenancy.
If in case, they are also joint tenants in equity and in the event of death of one of the joint
tenants, the surviving tenant will succeed his or her share. Keeping the circumstances in view,

this result will manifest in unfairness and equity will recognize that even if A and B are joint
tenants at law, they are also tenants-in-common in equity and each and every one should be
entitled to share proportionate to his contribution (Crown, 2003). The net result is that A and B
are joint tenants in law, holding in trust for themselves as tenants in common in shares
proportionate to their contributions.
The commonly known method of severance of Singapore law was by acting on one’s share of the
property. If a tenant is involved in a deal regarding his share of the property, t implies that his
intentions are no longer to be part of joint tenancy. It can be done in a variety of ways:
- Firstly, under transfer of interest, an owner may severe a joint tenancy either by selling his
share or gifting it to a third party.
- Secondly, under the provisions of LTA, a mortgage on a registered property doesn’t entail a
transfer of title anymore. It is said to be just a charge over the property. It is then to be seen
whether the mortgage results into the severance of a joint tenancy because of the fact that the
title is still with the owner of the property (Teo, 1996).
- Thirdly, the position on whether a writ of the seizure and sale (WSS) that tantamount to
something like severance of joint tenancy is ambiguous due to differing opinions on the part
of Singapore Courts. Earlier, it was a well-known fact that the interest of a joint tenant could
be subject to a WSS. However, in the case of Malayan Banking BHD v Focal Finance
limited 3, it was established that interest of joint tenant cannot be subject to a WSS due to the
fact that interest is not distinctly identifiable just like interest in tenancy-in-common.
- Fourthly, as per the informal unilateral declaration by introducing Sec 53 (5) of the LTA, a
joint tenant can severe by an instrument of declaration.
- Fifthly, a joint tenancy can also be severed with an order of court.
In Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee, the High Court observed that the requirement for an
interest in land appeared for the first time in Malayan Banking without referring to any
supporting authorities. After extensive consideration on the part of the Court, it was declared that
“the severance of a joint tenancy in terms of undivided shares was not a prerequisite for a WSS
to be issued against joint tenant’s shares in the land” (EduTV, I., & TVNews, I. Issue Annual
Review 2015 (2015).).
A Proposal for Reforms regarding the Severance of Joint Tenancy in Singapore
The present state of law regarding severance of joint tenancy, as far as my research and
understanding is concerned, needs reforms in the following areas:
1. The Four Unities Rule
The survival of this rule even today seems to be just a legal traditionalism. It does not make
much sense either for a practical or a policy purpose for the continued use of three of the four
rules – Unity of title, Unity of interest and Unity of time. These are the ones that require co-
owners’ respective shares must be obtained from the same legal transaction, be of equal size and

coming into existence simultaneously (Orth, 2009). Only the Unity of possession now appears to
have a valid purpose as the foundation of both joint tenancy and tenancy-in-common to be the
concurrent right for the possession of the property in the case of two or more persons. Therefore,
it is recommended that the Property law needed to be amended to provide that share in joint
tenancy may – a) be of unequal size, b) created from different instruments, and c) created at
different times.
2. Severance of Joint Tenancies
(1) Severance after the reform of four unities rule
(a) Severance with the help of mutual agreement as well as course of dealing as these
two methods are independent of principled justification on the four unities rule.
(b) To look into the dealings in the interest of an individual co-owner that results into the
severance.
(c) Transfer of an interest in co-ownership with survivorship to oneself as the transfer of
such type should continue to be considered as a severance of the transferred interest.
(d) Preserving the existing methods of severance as no change is required as to how
severance can be accomplished after the implementation of the recommendation.
(e) Effect of unilateral severance on the right of survivorship amongst the remaining co-
owners. If the unities of time and title are abolished as per the recommendation, then
this change might be viewed as a general severance finishing the right of survivorship
completely.
(f) Reconstruction of the right of survivorship following the unilateral severance. So, it
will require a transfer by the co-owners to themselves as co-owners having the right.
(2) The difficulty of severance in secret
The possibility for a secret severance can result into a significant hardship on a
surviving joint tenant due to the fact that the future economic and physical security
are generally dependent on the right of survivorship. The severance without the
knowledge of other co-owners may not be helpful for them in the situation of
reordering their own affairs appropriately. Therefore, it is recommended that the Land
Title Act is needed to be amended for providing order to severe a co-ownership with
that of survivorship unilaterally in property. So, the other person that obtains the
interest under a serving transaction is needed to provide notification of the serving
transaction even including mortgage to the other joint tenants.
(3) Notice of severance and registration of serving instruments
It requires the following recommendations –
(a) Registrar should not register a transaction that severs a co-ownership with
that of survivorship apart from the agreement among the co-owners without any
proof regarding notice of severance being given to the co-owners
(b) If the registrar is satisfied that
i. If the notice of severance served to a person could not be located even after
significant efforts.
ii. It is not necessary to require proof about the notice of severance was given
Then, in this situation the registrar may –

i. Dispense with the requirement of notice
ii. Require that the notice be given as per his directive
(4) Effective time of severance: Recommendations -
The effectiveness of the severance should be on the following basis:
(a) Among the serving co-owner and other co-owners in the event of the notice of
severance is provided to the other co-owners; and
(b) Contrary to the third parties, only in the event of registration of the serving instrument
against the title when the property is being possessed in co-ownership with
survivorship.
(5) Final moment severance: the notice of the severance will be effective only if it is given
before the death of the serving co-owner.
(6) Notice of severance and joint beneficial interests: Recommendations -
(a) The above recommendations could be applied to all the co-ownerships with
survivorship in the property, which can include beneficial interests whenever a trustee
holds the legal title.
(b) In case the beneficial interests in the property are held in co-ownership with
survivorship, it will not be necessary to serve the notice to the trustee in order to sever
the survivorship among the beneficiaries.
(7) Non-severable co-ownership with survivorship: Recommendations –
(a) The Property Law is needed to be amended for making possible, with the agreement
of the co-owners, to produce a co-ownership with the survivorship that is not
severable by one co-owner’s interests with the others’ unless the consent of other co-
owners.
(b) The Land Title Act should provide for the registration of a notice of agreement.
Conclusions
The amendments in the laws being recommended in this report regarding Joint Tenancy
Severance Laws in Singapore, would presumably go a long way in removing some of the
outdated aspects of the joint tenancy and clarify other aspects around it. It will positively make
this form of property ownership more relevant and adaptable to meet the modern requirements.
They would especially reduce the differences between Joint Tenancy and Tenancy-in-Common,
which have obscured the laws to common citizens.

References
Crown, B. C. (1998). Severance of a Joint Tenancy: Diaz v Diaz. Singapore Journal of Legal
Studies, (July 1998), 166.
Crown, B. C. (2003). Developments in the Law of Co-ownership. Sing. J. Legal Stud., 116.
EduTV, I., & TVNews, I. Issue Annual Review 2015 (2015).
Joint ownership in Singapore and unequal contributions to purchase price |
SingaporeLegalAdvice.com. (2012). SingaporeLegalAdvice.com. Retrieved 20 October
2016, from https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/joint-ownership-in-singapore-and-
unequal-contributions-to-purchase-price/
Marti, G. (1957). Real Property: Joint Tenancy: Effect of Contract to Convey by Joint Tenants of
Entire Interest in Property as a Severance of the Joint Tenancy. Michigan Law
Review, 55(8), 1194. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1286371
One for All and All for One - Responsibilities of Directors. Lawgazette.com.sg. Retrieved 20
October 2016, from http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2009-1/feature3.htm
Orth, J. V. (2009). Perils of Joint Tenancies, The. Real Prop. Tr. & Est. LJ,44, 427.
Singapore - Joint Tenancy - An Independent Doctrine Of Ownership Or Merely A Tenancy In
Common In-Waiting? | Conventus Law. (2016). Conventuslaw.com. Retrieved 20 October
2016, from http://www.conventuslaw.com/report/singapore-joint-tenancy-an-independent-
doctrine-of/
Tan, S. Y. (2002). Facets of Communal Living under the Land Titles (Strata) Act: Common
Property, Rights of Subsidiary Proprietors of Individual Lots and the Role of the
Management Corporation. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 416-430.
Teo, K. S. (1996). Law of Real Property and Conveyancing [Book Review].Singapore Journal
of Legal Studies, (Dec 1996), 624.