Question8: What happens where the son or daughter transfers

property to the mother and father? Whether the issue raises the
question of presumption of advancement? Discuss this issue in
the light of the case Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors
Singapore [1993]

It is depend on the intention of the transferor. Where the intention

was not expressed or known, the law presumes a resulting trust in
favour of the transferor or grantor. If it has been ascertained that
the transferor or grantor intended that the grantee should not take
beneficial interest, then presumed resulting trust would arise.

This matter was stated very succinctly by Lord Upjohn in Vandervell

v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 at 312; [1967] 1
All ER 1: ...
Where A transfers property to B otherwise than for valuable
consideration it is a question of the intention of A in making the
transfer whether B was to take beneficially or on trust and, if the
latter, on what trusts. If, as a matter of construction of the
document transferring the legal estate, it is possible to discern A's
intentions, that is an end of the matter and no extraneous evidence
is admissible to correct and qualify his intentions so ascertained.

But if, as in this case (a common form share transfer), the document
is silent, then there is said to arise a resulting trust in favour of A.
But this is only a presumption and is easily rebutted. All the relevant
facts and circumstances can be considered in order to ascertain A's
intentions with a view to rebutting this presumption.

18
If we may respectfully paraphrase the words of Lord Upjohn, in
cases where the intention of the transferor or guarantor at the time
of the transfer can be ascertained from the documents, then no
question of any presumption of resulting trust would arise.

The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a

dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has
been carried to B, and from the absence of consideration and any
presumption of advancement B is presumed not only to hold the
entire interest on trust, but also to hold the beneficial interest for A
absolutely.

The respondent's intention at the time of the transfer was that the first appellant
takes the property absolutely for a stated consideration of $20,000 and there
was no intention on his part to retain his half share. In the circumstances, there
was no room for any presumption of resulting trust and no resulting trust of the
half share in favour of the respondent arose: at [19].. On these facts, counsel
submitted that the correct analysis was that there was an effective contract
contained in or evidenced by the transfer and that the contract was enforceable.
In consequence no question of resulting trust arose.

clearly the respondent agreed to the transaction; his intention was to transfer
his undivided half share in the property for the sum of $20,000, being then the
estimated market value of his half share. The nature of the transaction was one
of contract for valuable consideration which he had agreed. Therefore, at the
time of the transfer, the intention of the respondent was that his mother was to
take the property absolutely and there was no intention on his part to retain his
half share; he was prepared to accept the sum of $20,000 in full satisfaction of
his half share. In these circumstances, there was no room for any presumption of
resulting trust arising, and, in our judgment, no resulting trust of the half share in
favour of the respondent arose.