Akibat Hukum Jual Beli Tanah Objek Jaminan Utang Atas Adanya Prosedur Pembuatan Akta yang Dilanggar (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 47 Pk/Pdt/2025)

Abstract

The sale and purchase of land serving a s debt collateral conducted in violation o f deed-making procedures gives rise to complex legal issues concerning legal certainty, legal protection, and justice for the parties involved. This study ms to analvze three main issues: mrs the legal regulaton governing t anster of land rights and its implementation through deeds of sale an purchase; second, unlawfil acts i n the settlement of debt obligations through the transfer of property; and third, an analysis of the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court in Decision Number 47 PK/Pdt/2025 concerning the legal consequences of the sale and purchase of land used as debt collateral due to violations of deed- making procedures. Thish reseech emplosed nornutive a sitical me hadronth a presa prive approach. The study is supported b y secondary data collected through library research, with all data subsequently analyzed qualitatively and conclusions drawn deductively. The results of the study indicate as follows. First, the transfer of land rights through a deed o f sale and purchase in Indonesia i s regulated under the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997, which require the execution o f an authentic deed by a n authorized Land Deed Official (PPAT) and registration at the land office as prerequisites for the validity of the transfer of rights. Second, unlawful acts in the settlement of debt obligations through property transfer, as regulated under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code, may take the form of misuse of collateral objects, transfer of rights without the owner's consent, unlawful detention of property, and execution of collateral without proper procedures, resulting in the party committing such unlawful acts being held liable for compensation. Third, Supreme Court Decision Number 4 7 PK/Pdt/2025, which annulled Deeds o f Sale and Purchase Number 134/2016 and Number 135/2016 on the grounds of procedural violations and abuse of circumstances, raises juridical issues, namely the failure to provide adequate consideration regarding the position o f a good- faith purchaser who conducted the transaction lawfully, the lack of clarity concerning the proportionality of legal consequences arising from procedural violations in deed-making, and the absence of consideration regarding the liability of the Notary/PPAT and compensation mechanisms for the injured parties.