Legal Analysis of the Implementation of the Execution of the Object of Mortgage Based on Decree Number: 10/PDT.EKS/RL/2024/PN.JKT.BRT JO. Number 265/25/2023
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the validity of the execution of the object of mortgage based on Decree Number: 10/Pdt.Eks/RL/2024/PN.Jkt.Brt jo. The case was registered under the title of the Building Use Rights Certificate (SHGB) No. 265/25/2023/KPKNL, Area I Jakarta, with two Building Use Rights Certificates (SHGB) No. 11 and 12 in the name of PT Inasa Wahana. The execution was carried out due to the debtor's default, but this gave rise to legal issues because a third party, PT Lunto Richpat, was operating the property under a lease agreement without receiving any notification or warning prior to the execution. Furthermore, a discrepancy was found between the addresses of the property listed in the SHGB and the locations of the executed buildings, namely Jalan Bulak Teko, RT 006 RW 003 and RT 011 RW 003. This research employed a normative juridical method with a case approach and a statute approach. Data were obtained from court rulings, KPKNL auction documents, and legal literature on collateral. The results indicate that the execution did not fully comply with the principles of legal certainty and protection for third parties as stipulated in Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights. Mismatching the execution object and the lack of notification to third parties have the potential to create legal flaws in the execution process and civil liability for the execution applicant.
The author recommends that every execution of mortgage rights be conducted with the prudential principle, thorough physical verification of the object, and official notification to interested parties, to ensure fairness and legal certainty for all parties involved.
References
2. HIR (Herzien Inlandsch Reglement) / RBg (Reglemen Buitengewesten) Articles 195–208 HIR (or Articles 206–240 RBg).
3. Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.
4. Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 3 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Filing Objections to the Execution of Mortgage Rights.
5. Jurisprudence and Legal Doctrine: Supreme Court Decision No. 3211 K/Pdt/1984 emphasizes that the execution of mortgage rights must comply with the principle of prudence.
6. Regulation of the Head of the National Land Agency (BPN) and Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of BPN No. 3 of 1997 concerning Implementing Provisions of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration.
7. Main Regulations in PMK 213/PMK.06/2020. Transitional Provisions and Revocation of Old Regulations. This PMK revokes PMK No. 27/PMK.06/2016 concerning Auction Implementation Guidelines.
8. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 350 K/Pdt/2017.
9. Decision of the South Jakarta District Court Number 332/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Sel.
10. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1022 K/Pdt/2015.
11. J. Satrio – Law on Security of Property Rights (Mortgage, Fiduciary, Pawn, and Mortgage). Publisher: Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
12. R. Subekti – Contract Law and Principles of Civil Law. Publisher: Intermasa, Jakarta.
13. Sri Soedewi Masjchoen Sofwan – Guarantee Law in Indonesia: Principles of Guarantee Law and Individual Guarantee. Publisher: Liberty, Yogyakarta.
14. Gunawan Widjaja & Kartini Muljadi – Mortgage Rights: A Guarantee Institution for Land and Land-Related Objects. Publisher: RajaGrafindo Persada, Jakarta.
15. Salim HS – Development of Guarantee Law in Indonesia. Publisher: RajaGrafindo Persada, Jakarta.
16. Hermansyah – Indonesian National Banking Law. Publisher: Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
