Analisis Peralihan Hak Atas Tanah Secara Dibawah Tangan Terhadap Objek Tanah Yang Masih Sebagai Jaminan Kredit Pemilikan Rumah (Kpr) Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 1142 K/Pdt/2014

Abstract

To meet the housing needs of the public, financial institutions, particularly banks, play a crucial role in providing funds for housing development, one of which is through Housing Loans (KPR). According to Law No. 10 of 1998 concerning Banking, KPR refers to long-term credit provided by banks to debtors for constructing or purchasing new or used homes on a plot of land, with the house and land ownership certificates serving as collateral. The informal transfer of land rights over KPR property, when carried out through under-the-table sales between bank debtors and third-party buyers, creates legal issues for the buyers or recipients of the transferred loan, both in terms of legal certainty and ownership rights over the KPR land. This research employs a normative juridical approach with descriptive-analytical characteristics. Secondary data sources are used, consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, with data collection conducted through document studies. The results indicate that the legal validity of informal land sales involving KPR-collateralized land is binding between the seller and buyer as long as the agreement meets the legal conditions stipulated in Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUH Perdata). However, such transactions cannot be officially recorded or result in a transfer of title. The legal consequence for the buyer of land purchased informally while still under a KPR mortgage is that the buyer is not protected by Article 531 of the Civil Code and is also not covered by the national agrarian law, specifically Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles and its implementing regulations. In Supreme Court Decision No. 1142 K/Pdt/2014, the panel of judges ruled the informal land sale invalid as the land in question was still under the name of the original debtor, and the buyer could not prove the transfer of ownership. Consequently, the judges did not grant legal protection to the buyer of the KPR-collateralized land sold informally.