Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

OVERVIEW OF TORRENS SYSTEMS IN MALAYSIA

Overview of Torrens System in Malaysia:

Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code 1965, Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code.

It is important to recognize that the Malaysian Torrens System maintains the principles of equity. This system is structured to allow equity’s jurisdiction to intervene based on conscientious grounds, ensuring fair treatment.

Issues:

Legal Issue: Status of a Buyer Who Has Paid in Full the Purchase Price:

The question arises: Does a buyer who has paid the full purchase price become the beneficial owner of the property?

  • Upon full payment, the seller assumes the role of a ‘bare trustee,’ legally restricted from selling or transferring the land to others.
  • Any subsequent transfer of the property to new buyers is invalid, as the seller, being a bare trustee, lacks the legal capacity to make such agreements.
  • Therefore, a buyer who has finalized the sale agreement and paid in full is deemed the beneficial owner, enjoying the privileges of ownership, even before official registration as the landowner.

Illustrative Scenario:

X signed sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with Y to buy a property. When the SPA was executed, individual title for the property had yet to be issued. Having paid the full purchase price for the property, X would become beneficial owner of the property although he was not registered owner of the property, while Y would become bare trustee of the property.

Reference Cases:

  • Mollie Ong Siew Choo @ Mrs Chong Kim Choy & Ors v NCT United Development Sdn Bhd [2023] 12 MLJ 241 [HC]
  • Wan Noor Kamariah bt Wan Jaafar v Aritah Realty Sdn Bhd & Ors and other appeals [2021] 6 MLJ 446
  • He-Con Sdn Bhd v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 MLJ 662
  • Federal Court in Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 1
  • Federal Court in Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Bhd v Time Engineering Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 12
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us