Beneficiary rights under intestacy persist after death and devolve to lawful heirs, allowing them to apply for estate distribution under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act.

Introduction

[1] The appellant in this case commenced an originating summons against her sister-in-law seeking orders, among others, to declare that the respondent was not entitled to file a petition for the distribution of the estate of the appellant's late husband and for the appellant to be declared the sole heir to his estate.

Material Background Facts

[2] The appellant, Madam Faustina Sta Maria, was the estranged wife of Mr Eric De Cruz, who has since passed away. They had no children. The respondent, Madam Mary De Cruz, is one of the four sisters of Mr De Cruz.

[3] Prior to his death, Mr De Cruz filed a divorce petition. He died intestate before the petition was determined.

[4] Mr De Cruz died intestate on 30 April 2011. His mother, Madam Mabel De Cruz, died some 11 months later, survived by her four daughters, the respondent among them. Mr De Cruz's father had predeceased him.

[5] The respondent made an application on 27 February 2019 under s 8 of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 for the distribution of the estate of Mr De Cruz. The respondent was also the administrator of the estate of her late mother. When that application first came up for hearing on 6 May 2021, the appellant informed the Petaling district land administrator that the respondent did not possess any right to make an application under s 8. Despite the protestations of the appellant, the land administrator nonetheless proceeded to appoint the respondent as administrator of Mr De Cruz's estate. According to the appellant, she was advised by the land administrator to apply to the High Court to set aside the respondent's application of 27 February 2019.

At The High Court

[6] The appellant commenced an originating summons in October 2021 seeking (amongst others) to be declared as the sole heir to the estate of her late husband and to set aside the application by the respondent under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 on the basis that the respondent lacked locus standi to make the application. Various orders were also sought to injunct the respondent from intermeddling in the estate of Eric De Cruz.

[7] The learned High Court Judge hearing the originating summons found that the estate was a small estate within the meaning of s 3(2) of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 , and hence the land administrator possessed exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the distribution and administration of the estate. The High Court nonetheless proceeded to determine the issue of the locus standi, by which it may be surmised that the High Court considered that it was sufficiently seized of the jurisdiction to do so. The High Court found that the defendant was possessed with the necessary locus standi to make the s 8 application, holding as follows:

[23] Dari affidavit yang difailkan saya dapati Defendan mempunyai locus untuk membuat permohonan kepada Pentadbir Tanah. Permohonan Defendan kepada Pentadbir Tanah untuk pembahagian pusaka si mati adalah setakat 1/2 bahagian pusaka tersebut. Pada masa si mati meninggal dunia, ibu si mati masih hidup dan ibu si mati mempunyai hak untuk mendapat pusaka si mati bersama-sama Plaintif (s 6 Distribution Act 1958 ).

[24] Adalah menjadi fakta bahawa ibu si mati telah meninggal dunia tidak lama selepas si mati meninggal dunia. Penentuan hak ibu si mati adalah pada masa kematian si mati dan hak ibu si mati kepada pusaka si mati tidak luput dengan kematiannya ((Gurmit Singh Lal Singh v. Sarjit Singh Lal Singh & Anor 2018 MarsdenLR 74). Lih