Court of Appeal finds 2011 marriage of convenience valid, wife stands to inherit half of late husband's estate

The marriage took place before changes to the law dictated that marriages of convenience solemnised on or after Oct 1, 2016 are void.

The marriage lasted less than a year and the groom died after contracting cancer. (File photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

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 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.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

该婚姻是在法律修改之前举行的，修改后的法律规定，在 2016 年 10 月 1 日或之后举行的权宜婚姻无效。

这段婚姻维持不到一年，新郎因患癌症去世。（图片来源：iStock）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名男子在新加坡去世，没有留下遗嘱，他的越南妻子将继承他一半的遗产，尽管他们的婚姻是出于利益考量。

这是因为这对夫妇于2011年结婚，当时法律尚未修改，2016年10月1日及之后举行的权宜婚姻无效。上诉法院于周三（10月21日）裁定，相关法律不能追溯适用。

该决定存在分歧，首席大法官 Sundaresh Menon 不同意最终结果，但大法官 Debbie Ong 和 Ang Cheng Hock 表示同意。

死者的独子曾向高等法院申请命令，宣布这段短暂的婚姻无效，并剥夺该女子继承遗产的任何权利。

死者郑孟坤先生于 2011 年 1 月 26 日与越南籍邓兰英女士结婚。

法庭获悉，郑先生从未向任何家庭成员提及过他的婚姻，尽管他与他们关系亲近。

这是他的第二次婚姻，他与第一任妻子离婚了。

程先生并没有和邓女士同住，也没有搬去和她一起住。相反，他继续和姐姐住在一起。

在与邓女士结婚前不久，程先生的毒瘾复发，经济状况也陷入困境。

他还受到高利贷者的骚扰。

然而，在他与邓女士结婚期间，骚扰行为停止了，尽管家人并不清楚他是如何偿还债务的。

程先生患上癌症晚期，婚后不到一年便去世了。

邓女士没有提供任何支持，也没有与程先生的家人联系，在程先生住院期间完全缺席。

判决书显示，郑先生甚至在临终前也没有提到她。

他于 2012 年 1 月去世，没有留下有效遗嘱。

他的资产主要包括他在组屋中拥有的 14% 的股份以及他在中央公积金 (CPF) 中的存款。

2012 年 3 月，破产和公共信托办公室 (IPTO) 的一封信函让家人得知了邓女士的婚讯。

信中告知他们，邓女士作为郑先生的妻子，有权获得郑先生公积金的一部分。

邓女士的家人没有任何关于她的信息，IPTO在《海峡时报》上刊登了一则通知，询问邓女士的下落，但未能获得任何相关信息。

2024 年 7 月，移民与关卡局通知邓女士的家人，邓女士因违反移民法于 2011 年被驱逐出境。

2024 年 10 月，郑先生的儿子郑子尊先生申请宣告该婚姻无效，因为这是一场虚假婚姻或权宜婚姻。

他想把邓女士排除在他父亲遗产的任何份额之外。

由于《妇女宪章》中没有法律依据宣布此类婚姻无效，他的申请被驳回，于是他提出了上诉。

上诉法院的裁决

审理此案的两名法官，Ang 法官和 Ong 法官，认为法院不能以《妇女宪章》规定的理由之外的理由宣布婚姻无效。

这些理由不包括因婚姻缔结动机不正当而宣告婚姻无效。

法官们发现，《妇女宪章》明确规定了自 2016 年 10 月 1 日起的公共政策，但没有任何迹象表明该政策在此日期之前也有效。

他们发现，将因权宜婚姻而产生的行为定为犯罪本身并不影响婚姻本身的有效性。

他们驳回了上诉，称没有理由宣布婚姻无效。

然而，法院并未对死者遗产的管理或分配作出裁决，因为这些问题不属于上诉的范围。

首席大法官梅农在少数派意见中表示，郑先生和邓女士的婚姻应被宣布无效，因为该婚姻并非根据《2020 年妇女宪章》所规定的有效结婚许可证举行。

他说，他本会允许上诉，并宣布该婚姻无效，因为它没有按照 2009 年妇女宪章规定的含义，凭有效的结婚许可证举行婚礼。

然而，由于他的观点属于少数派，上诉被驳回。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。