Civil Law and Blockchain-Based Space Asset Ownership Disputes in Singapore

1. Introduction

The emergence of blockchain technology in the space industry has created new legal questions concerning the ownership, transfer, registration, financing and enforcement of rights over space-related assets.

Blockchain-based space asset ownership refers to the use of distributed ledger technology, smart contracts, tokenisation and digital ownership records to represent interests in assets connected with space activities.

Examples include:

Tokenised ownership interests in satellites and satellite components.

Blockchain-based registration of spacecraft and orbital equipment.

Digital tokens representing interests in space infrastructure.

Smart-contract-based satellite leasing and financing.

Tokenised interests in space-generated data and intellectual property.

Digital records of ownership in space debris removal equipment.

Blockchain-based insurance and collateral arrangements for spacecraft.

Singapore is particularly relevant because its legal framework combines common-law property principles, commercial arbitration, digital-asset jurisprudence, electronic transactions legislation and international space-law obligations.

Important legal qualification: Singapore does not yet have a substantial body of reported judgments specifically deciding ownership disputes over blockchain-tokenised satellites or other space assets. Consequently, the relevant legal analysis must draw on Singapore's decisions concerning digital assets, trusts, proprietary remedies, contractual rights and insolvency, alongside international space-law principles.

The central legal question is whether a blockchain token represents actual legal ownership of a physical space asset or merely a contractual, beneficial or economic interest in that asset.

2. Meaning and Legal Nature of Blockchain-Based Space Asset Ownership

Blockchain-based space asset ownership involves recording transactions and ownership-related interests through a decentralised digital ledger.

For example, a Singapore company might issue 10,000 blockchain tokens representing fractional economic interests in a satellite worth SGD 50 million.

Each token might purport to represent:

A fractional beneficial interest in the satellite.

A right to receive satellite-service revenue.

A contractual right to use satellite capacity.

An interest in a satellite leasing arrangement.

A security interest or investment claim.

These interests must be distinguished because they do not necessarily confer identical legal rights.

A. Physical ownership

Physical ownership concerns legal title to the satellite, spacecraft, equipment or other tangible property.

The blockchain entry alone does not necessarily transfer legal title. The transfer must comply with the applicable property, contractual and corporate requirements.

B. Beneficial ownership

A trustee or special-purpose vehicle may legally own a satellite while token holders hold beneficial interests under a trust.

The trust instrument, rather than the token alone, determines the beneficiaries' enforceable rights.

C. Contractual ownership rights

A token may represent a contractual entitlement to satellite capacity, revenue or services without granting ownership of the underlying spacecraft.

D. Digital ownership records

A blockchain can provide evidence of transactions, authorisation and control. However, control of a private key is not automatically equivalent to legal ownership.

This distinction is fundamental to Singapore civil litigation.

3. Legal Framework Governing Space Asset Ownership in Singapore

A. Singapore contract law

Contract law governs agreements involving:

Satellite acquisition and sale.

Spacecraft leasing.

Token issuance and subscription.

Blockchain-based transfers.

Satellite capacity-sharing arrangements.

Custody and administration of digital assets.

The courts will examine whether the parties intended the blockchain transaction to create a legally enforceable transfer or merely to record an economic arrangement.

Relevant issues include:

Offer and acceptance.

Consideration.

Intention to create legal relations.

Certainty of contractual terms.

Misrepresentation and fraud.

Breach of contract and remedies.

Where a smart contract automatically transfers tokens, the parties' underlying agreement remains important. An automated transaction does not become legally binding merely because the software executed it.

B. Property law and beneficial ownership

Singapore common law recognises property interests in certain digital assets.

The principal analytical framework is derived from National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, which identifies four characteristics of property:

Definability.

Identifiability by third parties.

Capability of assumption by third parties.

Some degree of permanence or stability.

These principles are relevant when deciding whether a blockchain token representing a satellite interest can constitute property.

However, the token and the satellite are separate legal objects. A proprietary right in a token does not automatically establish ownership of the spacecraft represented by that token.

C. Trust law

Trust law becomes important when satellite assets are held through a special-purpose company or trustee.

For example:

A trustee holds legal title to a satellite.

Investors acquire beneficial interests through tokenised units.

A blockchain records transfers of those units.

Revenue is distributed according to the trust deed.

A valid trust generally requires certainty of intention, subject matter and objects.

The legal documentation must identify the underlying property and beneficiaries sufficiently clearly.

D. Electronic Transactions Act 2010

Singapore's Electronic Transactions Act 2010 provides legal recognition for electronic records, electronic signatures and qualifying electronic transactions.

Its relevance includes:

Electronic execution of satellite acquisition contracts.

Digital signatures on token subscription agreements.

Electronic records of ownership-related transactions.

Electronic execution of financing and leasing documents.

Smart-contract-related commercial arrangements.

Nevertheless, electronic recognition does not independently establish that a blockchain entry transfers title to a physical satellite.

E. International space law

Space assets are also subject to international space law.

The principal instruments include:

Outer Space Treaty 1967.

Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972.

Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1975.

Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1968.

Three principles are particularly important.

First: Ownership can continue in outer space. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, is not affected by their presence in outer space or return to Earth.

Second: Registration remains distinct from blockchain registration. A private blockchain ledger does not replace the relevant state's international registration obligations.

Third: International responsibility remains important. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty addresses state responsibility for national space activities, including those conducted by non-governmental entities.

Thus, blockchain tokenisation cannot displace the international legal framework governing space objects.

4. Singapore Case Laws: Detailed Analysis

The following decisions provide the principal Singapore judicial foundations for analysing blockchain-based space asset ownership disputes. They are digital-asset and commercial-law precedents, not judgments directly concerning satellite ownership.

Case 1. B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 03

Digital assets and trust law

Facts:

B2C2 operated an algorithmic cryptocurrency trading business using Quoine's digital currency exchange.

A technical problem caused certain cryptocurrency trades to occur at significantly abnormal exchange rates.

Quoine subsequently reversed the transactions, resulting in a dispute concerning contractual obligations and the treatment of cryptocurrency held in user accounts.

Legal issues:

Whether cryptocurrency could constitute property.

Whether cryptocurrency could be held on trust.

Whether the exchange breached contractual and trust obligations.

Whether automated trading arrangements could produce legally binding transactions.

Judgment and principles:

The Singapore International Commercial Court recognised the potential proprietary character of cryptocurrency.

It applied the Ainsworth characteristics of property and accepted that cryptocurrency could, in principle, be held on trust.

The court also examined the three certainties necessary to establish a trust.

Application to space assets:

Suppose a Singapore company issues blockchain tokens representing beneficial interests in a satellite.

If the company holds the satellite through a trustee, the principles in this case help determine whether the tokenised interests can form part of an enforceable trust arrangement.

The trust documentation must establish the intention to create the trust and identify the property and beneficiaries.

Case 2. Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 02

Court of Appeal

Facts:

Quoine appealed against the first-instance decision concerning the reversal of cryptocurrency trades.

The dispute involved algorithmically executed transactions and the legal consequences of automated trading.

Legal issues:

Whether algorithmic transactions could be invalidated on grounds of unilateral mistake.

Whether cryptocurrency constituted property capable of being held on trust.

Whether Quoine had breached contractual obligations.

Whether the requirements for a trust had been satisfied.

Judgment:

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal concerning contractual liability but allowed the appeal concerning breach of trust.

Importantly, it did not finally determine whether cryptocurrency was a species of property capable of being held on trust. It found that the required certainty of intention to create a trust was absent.

Application to space assets:

This judgment is relevant where satellite ownership is transferred through automated blockchain instructions.

For example, a smart contract might automatically transfer a satellite ownership token after receiving payment.

A subsequent dispute could arise where the system executes an unintended transfer because of defective programming.

The case demonstrates that automated execution does not eliminate the need to examine contractual intention, knowledge and the circumstances of the transaction.

Case 3. CLM v CLN and Others [2022] SGHC 46

Proprietary injunctions

Facts:

The claimant alleged that cryptocurrency assets, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, had been stolen by unidentified persons.

The claimant sought proprietary and worldwide freezing relief to prevent the assets from being transferred or dissipated.

Legal issues:

Whether stolen cryptocurrency could give rise to proprietary rights.

Whether proprietary injunctions could protect cryptocurrency.

Whether interim orders could be granted against unidentified defendants.

Whether exchanges could be required to provide relevant information.

Judgment:

The High Court held that cryptocurrency satisfied the Ainsworth characteristics sufficiently to support a serious arguable case that it was property.

It granted proprietary relief and considered the position of unidentified defendants.

Application to space assets:

Imagine that an investor's tokenised satellite interests are transferred without authority to an unidentified blockchain wallet.

The investor may seek:

A proprietary injunction.

A freezing injunction.

Disclosure orders against relevant intermediaries.

Tracing of the transferred tokens.

Recovery of misappropriated assets.

The case is particularly important for disputes involving anonymous wallet holders and cross-border transfers.

Case 4. Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person [2022] SGHC 264

NFT ownership and injunctions

Facts:

The claimant alleged that an unidentified person had wrongfully obtained control of a Bored Ape Yacht Club non-fungible token.

The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the NFT from being transferred or disposed of.

Legal issues:

Whether an NFT could be protected by proprietary remedies.

Whether an injunction could be issued against an unidentified defendant.

Whether blockchain-based ownership interests could be protected pending trial.

Judgment:

The Singapore High Court granted a worldwide proprietary injunction concerning the disputed NFT.

The decision demonstrated the practical willingness of Singapore courts to consider proprietary protection for digital assets.

Application to space assets:

Suppose a unique blockchain token represents the beneficial interest in a particular satellite.

If an unauthorised party transfers the token to another wallet, the original holder may seek an injunction preventing further transfers.

However, the court would still need to distinguish the NFT or token from legal title to the physical satellite.

Case 5. ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and Others [2023] SGHC 199

Property and constructive trusts

Facts:

The case concerned the misappropriation of USDT cryptocurrency and fiat currency by an employee.

The dispute involved the legal character of cryptocurrency and the availability of proprietary remedies.

Legal issues:

Whether USDT constituted property.

Whether cryptocurrency could be held on trust.

Whether constructive trust principles could apply.

Whether the claimant could obtain proprietary relief.

Judgment:

The High Court held that USDT constituted a chose in action and was capable of being held on trust.

The court found that ByBit was the legal and beneficial owner of the relevant assets and declared a constructive trust.

The judgment is particularly significant because it provided a substantive analysis of the proprietary nature of cryptocurrency.

Application to space assets:

Suppose an employee responsible for managing tokenised satellite investments secretly transfers tokens into a personal wallet.

The employer or asset-owning company could potentially pursue:

A declaration of beneficial ownership.

A constructive trust.

Proprietary recovery.

Personal claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

Tracing into identifiable substitute assets.

The decision supports the proposition that digital assets can attract substantive proprietary remedies, rather than merely contractual remedies.

Case 6. Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd [2024] SGHC 21

Digital assets and insolvency

Facts:

The proceedings concerned the liquidation and recovery of assets associated with Three Arrows Capital, a cryptocurrency investment fund.

The dispute involved the treatment of digital assets and the legal consequences of insolvency.

Legal issues:

Whether cryptocurrency constitutes property.

Whether digital assets can be dealt with in insolvency proceedings.

Whether proprietary claims can be distinguished from ordinary contractual claims.

Whether assets can be traced and recovered.

Judicial significance:

The High Court treated the proprietary status of crypto-assets as a matter that could no longer seriously be disputed.

The case contributes to the developing Singapore jurisprudence on digital asset ownership and insolvency.

Application to space assets:

Consider a satellite investment company that becomes insolvent while holding tokenised interests in several spacecraft.

The liquidator may have to distinguish:

Assets legally owned by the company.

Assets held on trust for token holders.

Contractual claims of investors.

Security interests granted to lenders.

Assets transferred before insolvency.

The distinction is critical because trust property and company-owned property may receive different treatment in insolvency.

Case 7. B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC(I) 08

Facts:

This decision concerned interim proceedings arising from the same cryptocurrency trading dispute that subsequently produced the 2019 substantive judgment and 2020 appeal.

The litigation involved cryptocurrency transactions executed through an electronic exchange.

Legal significance:

The proceedings demonstrate the importance of interim judicial protection in disputes involving digital trading systems and assets that can be rapidly transferred.

Application to space assets:

A dispute involving tokenised satellite ownership may require urgent court intervention before the disputed tokens are transferred, encumbered or dissipated.

The case illustrates the procedural importance of protecting disputed assets while substantive ownership questions are being determined.

Note: Cases 1, 2 and 7 concern different stages of the same underlying litigation and should not be treated as three independent factual precedents.

Case 8. Fantom Foundation Ltd v Multichain Foundation Ltd and Another [2024] SGHC 173

Valuation of digital assets

Facts and legal issues:

The proceedings concerned a dispute involving cryptocurrency assets and the assessment of damages arising from the alleged wrongful handling of those assets.

The court considered issues concerning the valuation of cryptocurrency in the context of civil remedies.

Legal significance:

The case is relevant to determining the monetary value of digital assets when proprietary or contractual claims are litigated.

Application to space assets:

If a tokenised satellite interest is wrongfully transferred, destroyed or rendered inaccessible, the court may need to determine:

The market value of the token.

The value of the underlying satellite interest.

Whether the token represents revenue rights or physical ownership.

The appropriate valuation date.

Whether damages should include lost commercial revenue.

A token's trading price should not automatically be equated with the value of the physical satellite.

5. Major Civil-Law Issues in Blockchain-Based Space Asset Ownership

A. Disputes between token holders and satellite owners

One of the most important disputes arises when a blockchain token holder claims ownership of a satellite but the registered spacecraft owner denies that the token represents legal title.

Example:

A Singapore company owns a communications satellite through a subsidiary. It issues 5,000 tokens to investors.

Subsequently, the company enters insolvency proceedings. Investors claim that they collectively own the satellite, while the liquidator argues that they possess only contractual claims.

The court must investigate:

The satellite acquisition agreement.

The token issuance documentation.

The trust deed, if any.

The company's constitutional documents.

The blockchain transaction records.

The parties' intention regarding legal and beneficial ownership.

The principles in ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd are relevant.

B. Fraudulent transfer of satellite ownership tokens

A blockchain transaction may be technically valid but legally unauthorised.

For example, an employee obtains access to a company's digital wallet and transfers satellite investment tokens to a personal wallet.

Potential civil claims include:

Breach of fiduciary duty.

Breach of contract.

Conversion, where legally applicable.

Unjust enrichment.

Constructive trust.

Proprietary recovery.

The claimant may seek interim injunctions to prevent further transfers.

CLM v CLN and ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin are particularly relevant.

C. Double sale of space assets

Double-sale disputes arise when the same satellite or beneficial interest is purportedly transferred to two different purchasers.

For example:

Seller A transfers a satellite interest to Buyer B under a signed contract.

Seller A subsequently issues a blockchain token representing the same interest to Buyer C.

Buyer C relies on the blockchain ledger as evidence of ownership.

The court must decide which transaction has legal priority.

Relevant considerations include:

Whether the seller possessed transferable title.

Whether the first transaction was completed.

Whether the second purchaser acted in good faith.

Whether registration or notice requirements applied.

Whether the parties agreed that blockchain confirmation constituted completion.

Blockchain timestamps are evidence of transaction chronology, but do not automatically determine legal priority.

D. Smart-contract execution errors

Smart contracts may automatically transfer tokens or distribute satellite revenue.

Errors may arise from:

Defective programming.

Incorrect satellite performance data.

Oracle manipulation.

Cyberattacks.

Unauthorised software updates.

Incorrect payment calculations.

A party affected by an erroneous transaction may claim contractual damages, restitution or proprietary relief, depending on the circumstances.

Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd is especially important because the Court of Appeal examined algorithmic transactions and the doctrine of unilateral mistake.

E. Satellite destruction and ownership disputes

A satellite may be destroyed through collision, malfunction or other space-related incidents.

This raises questions concerning:

Whether tokenised ownership interests survive the destruction.

Whether insurance proceeds belong to the token holders.

Whether the trustee remains responsible for distributing compensation.

Whether the underlying trust property has been replaced by insurance proceeds.

Whether investors possess contractual claims against the issuing company.

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty is relevant to ownership of space objects, while the Liability Convention provides an international framework for specified damage caused by space objects.

F. Insolvency and competing proprietary claims

A satellite operator may become insolvent while holding assets for multiple token holders.

The court must distinguish between:

The Three Arrows Capital litigation is relevant to cross-border digital-asset insolvency and proprietary claims.

6. Jurisdiction and Cross-Border Ownership Disputes

Space assets and blockchain transactions frequently involve several jurisdictions.

For example:

The satellite manufacturer may be located in Japan.

The satellite-owning company may be incorporated in Singapore.

The blockchain platform may operate internationally.

The token holders may reside in different countries.

The satellite may be registered by another launching state.

This creates complex private international law questions.

A. Determining the applicable law

The court must identify the law governing:

The underlying satellite sale.

The token issuance agreement.

The trust arrangement.

The blockchain transfer.

The security interest.

The ownership of the physical space object.

The law governing the token does not necessarily govern ownership of the underlying spacecraft.

B. Determining the location of digital assets

In Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd [2024] SGHC 21, the High Court examined the location or situs of cryptocurrency.

The court considered the residence of the person controlling the private key to be the appropriate basis for locating the cryptoasset in the circumstances.

This is relevant where a Singapore investor controls tokens representing satellite ownership but the spacecraft is registered elsewhere.

However, the situs of a blockchain token and the jurisdiction governing a physical satellite are separate questions.

C. Jurisdiction over unidentified defendants

Blockchain transactions may involve anonymous wallet holders.

In Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person [2022] SGHC 264, the Singapore High Court demonstrated that an unidentified defendant can be the subject of appropriate court proceedings and interim proprietary relief.

This is relevant to satellite-token theft and unauthorised transfers involving anonymous blockchain addresses.

D. International arbitration

Parties may choose arbitration for satellite ownership disputes.

Potential arbitration issues include:

Validity of token transfers.

Interpretation of smart contracts.

Breach of satellite leasing agreements.

Beneficial ownership.

Damages for lost satellite revenue.

Enforcement of arbitral awards.

Singapore's International Arbitration Act 1994 and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre framework may be relevant where the dispute falls within their scope.

However, questions concerning third-party proprietary rights, insolvency, state responsibility and non-arbitrable matters may require court involvement.

7. Regulatory Framework and Institutional Considerations

Several Singapore legal frameworks may become relevant depending on the structure of the transaction.

Not every tokenised space asset is a security or regulated digital payment token. Its legal classification depends on its characteristics and the rights attached to it.

Singapore acceded to the Outer Space Treaty on 10 September 1976. The treaty's provisions are particularly relevant when distinguishing private ownership of space objects from the international responsibilities of states.

8. Important Legal Challenges

1. Conflict between blockchain records and conventional title documents

A blockchain may show one person as the token holder while conventional documents identify another person as the legal owner.

Solution: Establish a legally binding hierarchy between the ownership agreement, trust deed, corporate records and blockchain ledger.

2. Private-key theft

A person may obtain control of a wallet without acquiring lawful ownership.

Solution: Require multi-signature authorisation, secure custody and transaction verification.

3. Unclear beneficial ownership

Token holders may incorrectly assume that acquiring tokens automatically makes them beneficial owners of the satellite.

Solution: Expressly establish beneficial interests through a properly constituted trust or another legally effective arrangement.

4. Cross-border insolvency

The satellite, token issuer, trustee and investors may be located in different jurisdictions.

Solution: Include governing-law provisions, insolvency protections, custody arrangements and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

5. Satellite destruction

Physical destruction may affect the value of the underlying investment.

Solution: Establish contractual rules for insurance proceeds, replacement assets and distributions following total loss.

6. Smart-contract vulnerabilities

Defective code can result in unauthorised transfers and inaccurate revenue distributions.

Solution: Introduce independent code audits, emergency suspension mechanisms and legally enforceable correction procedures.

7. Uncertainty regarding tokenised security interests

A token purporting to represent a mortgage or charge over a satellite may not itself create a legally effective security interest.

Solution: Execute and perfect the underlying security in accordance with the applicable law, rather than relying exclusively on blockchain registration.

9. Hypothetical Case Study: Singapore Satellite Ownership Dispute

Facts

Singapore Space Infrastructure Pte Ltd owns a communications satellite through a special-purpose subsidiary.

The company issues 20,000 blockchain tokens to international investors. The offering documentation states that each token represents a beneficial interest in the satellite and its commercial revenue.

Subsequently:

The company's managing director transfers 2,000 tokens to an unauthorised wallet.

The satellite-owning subsidiary enters insolvency.

The liquidator claims that the satellite belongs to the subsidiary.

Token holders claim beneficial ownership of the spacecraft.

A foreign investor claims that the tokens were transferred to them under a valid blockchain transaction.

Legal questions

Question 1: Do token holders own the satellite?

Not automatically. Their rights depend on whether a valid trust or other proprietary arrangement was established.

Question 2: Can the unauthorised token transfer be reversed?

The court may grant proprietary or personal relief where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied. The blockchain transaction's technical finality does not necessarily establish its legal validity.

Question 3: Can investors claim the satellite during insolvency?

If a valid trust exists, investors may have beneficial proprietary claims. If the tokens confer only contractual rights, they may instead have personal claims against the issuer.

Question 4: Can the foreign investor claim ownership?

The court must examine the transferor's authority, the underlying agreement, the applicable property law and any relevant good-faith purchaser principles.

Possible judicial remedies

Declaration of beneficial ownership.

Constructive trust.

Proprietary injunction.

Freezing injunction.

Tracing of misappropriated tokens.

Damages for breach of contract.

Compensation for misappropriation.

Recognition of valid security interests.

Distribution of insurance proceeds where legally established.

The Singapore decisions in CLM v CLN, Janesh, ByBit and Cheong Jun Yoong provide useful analogies for these issues.

10. Recommendations for Legal Reform and Contractual Protection

Singapore could strengthen legal certainty in blockchain-based space asset ownership through the following measures.

A. Space asset ownership documentation

Establish standard documentation identifying the physical spacecraft, registered owner, beneficial owners, token holders and relevant security interests.

B. Blockchain ownership verification

Require independent verification that token transfers correspond to legally authorised transactions.

C. Smart-contract accountability

Specify who is responsible for programming errors, oracle failures, cybersecurity breaches and unauthorised transactions.

D. Satellite asset segregation

Use special-purpose entities and properly constituted trusts to distinguish satellite assets from the issuer's general commercial assets.

E. Insolvency protection

Clarify whether token holders are beneficial owners, secured creditors or unsecured contractual creditors.

F. Cross-border dispute resolution

Adopt clear governing-law, jurisdiction and arbitration clauses.

G. International registration coordination

Ensure that private blockchain records do not conflict with the registration and identification of space objects under international space law.

11. Summary of Important Case Laws

12. Conclusion

Civil law disputes involving blockchain-based space asset ownership in Singapore require the interaction of property law, contract law, trust law, insolvency law, electronic transactions legislation and international space law.

The most important distinction is between ownership of a blockchain token and ownership of the physical space asset represented by that token.

Singapore's decisions in CLM v CLN, Janesh, ByBit and Cheong Jun Yoong demonstrate the developing judicial capacity to recognise and protect proprietary interests in digital assets.

Nevertheless, these decisions do not establish that a blockchain token automatically transfers legal ownership of a satellite or spacecraft.

A legally effective ownership structure therefore requires clear title documentation, valid trust arrangements where appropriate, authorised blockchain transfers, proper asset segregation and compliance with applicable international space-law obligations.

The central legal proposition is that blockchain technology can facilitate the recording and transfer of space-related property interests, but the existence, extent and enforceability of ownership remain questions of substantive law.