Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[Dalam melakukan pedaftaran tanah dan penegakan hukum di bidang pertanahan, terdapat lembaga pemerintah non departemen yaitu BPN. BPN memiliki tugas menyelenggarakan beberapa fungsi yaitu perumusan kebijakan nasional di bidang pertanahan, pembinaan dan pelayanan administrasi umum di bidang pertanahan, Dalam praktiknya, tidak jarang terjadi terdapat kasus terbitnya sertipikat oleh BPN atau kantor pertanahan setempat terhadap tanah yang masih berstatus sengketa di pengadilan.Tesis ini membahas mengenai sengketa tanah antara Taily Aida dan Hendra Santoso dengan Kepala Kantor Pertanahan Kotamadya Surabaya yang berakibat pada pembatalan sertipikat hak milik nomor 669/ Dukuh Pakis atas nama pihak lain yaitu Suladi Abdus Shomad yang diterbitkan oleh Kantor Pertanahan Kotamadya Surabaya diatas tanah milik Taily Aida dan Hendra Santoso yang masih menjadi objek sengketa di pengadilan. Salah satu faktor penyebab timbulnya kasus ini adalah adanya kesalahan dari pihak administrasi kantor pertanahan kotamadya Surabaya. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan tipologi eksplanatoris dan preskriptif. Hasil penelitian menyimpukan bahwa timbulnya sertipikat hak milik atas nama pihak lain diatas tanah yang masih menjadi objek sengketa di pengadilan telah melanggar pasal 45 ayat (1) huruf e Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 24 Tahun 1997 serta langkah hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh Taily Aida dan Hendra Santoso yaitu mengajukan permohonan kembali hak atas tanah dengan sertipikat hak milik kepada Kantor Pertanahan Kotamadya Surabaya atas nama Taily Aida dan Hendra Santoso.;In conducting the registration of land and law enforcement in the land sector, there is a non-departmental government agency called BPN. BPN has the task of organizing several functions, namely the formulation of national policy in the field of land, development and general administrative services in the area of land, in practice, there are rare cases of issuance of certificates by BPN or local land office on the ground are still a dispute in the court. This thesis is illustrate about the land dispute between Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso against the Head of the Land Office of Surabaya City that resulted in the cancellation of property rights certificate number 669 / Dukuh Pakis on behalf of other parties, namely Suladi Abdus Shomad issued by the Land Office on land owned by the municipality of Surabaya Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso, who is still the object of dispute in court. One of the factors causing this case is mistakenness on the part of municipal land office administration Surabaya. Research using normative juridical method with typology of explanatory and prescriptive. Results of the study concluded that the incidence of property rights certificate on behalf of another party on the ground that they become the object of dispute in court has violated article 45 paragraph (1) letter e of the Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 as well as the legal steps that can be performed by Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso reapply land rights with certificates of property rights to the Land Office on behalf of the municipality of Surabaya as Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso., In conducting the registration of land and law enforcement in the land sector, there is a non-departmental government agency called BPN. BPN has the task of organizing several functions, namely the formulation of national policy in the field of land, development and general administrative services in the area of land, in practice, there are rare cases of issuance of certificates by BPN or local land office on the ground are still a dispute in the court. This thesis is illustrate about the land dispute between Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso against the Head of the Land Office of Surabaya City that resulted in the cancellation of property rights certificate number 669 / Dukuh Pakis on behalf of other parties, namely Suladi Abdus Shomad issued by the Land Office on land owned by the municipality of Surabaya Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso, who is still the object of dispute in court. One of the factors causing this case is mistakenness on the part of municipal land office administration Surabaya. Research using normative juridical method with typology of explanatory and prescriptive. Results of the study concluded that the incidence of property rights certificate on behalf of another party on the ground that they become the object of dispute in court has violated article 45 paragraph (1) letter e of the Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 as well as the legal steps that can be performed by Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso reapply land rights with certificates of property rights to the Land Office on behalf of the municipality of Surabaya as Taily Aida and Hendra Santoso.]

Abstrak :
PPAT dalam menjalankan jabatannya seharusnya bekerja dengan penuh tanggung jawab, mandiri, jujur dan tidak berpihak dalam proses pemecahan sertipikat hak atas tanah. PPAT juga harus bertanggung jawab atas akta autentik yang dibuatnya, yaitu salah satunya Akta Pembagian Hak Bersama dan Akta Jual Beli. Salah satu permasalahan yang ditemui terdapat dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 990 PK/PDT/2020 dimana adanya keterlibatan PPAT dalam proses pemecahan sertipikat dan pembuatan akta autentik. Hal ini menimbulkan permasalahan dimana PPAT melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum terhadap akta autentik yang dibuatnya dimana dalam Akta Pembagian Hak Bersama tanda tangan para pemilik sertipikat hak atas tanah dipalsukan oleh penghadap yang datang sehingga menimbulkan suatu perbuatan hukum bersama-sama dengan salah satu pemilik sertipikat hak atas tanah. Atas permasalahan tersebut, dalam penelitian ini akan menganalisis mengenai tanggung jawab Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah dalam proses pemecahan sertipikat hak milik yang dilanjutkan dengan akta pembagian hak bersama dan akta jual beli dan akibat hukum jika akta pembagian hak bersama sebagai dokumen rujukan tidak ditandatangan oleh seluruh ahli waris dalam proses pemecahan sertipikat hak milik. Penelitian ini mengunakan metode penelitian doktrinal yang ditinjau dari sudut sifatnya merupakan penelitian deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menjelaskan bahwa PPAT bertanggung jawab secara pidana, perdata dan administratif serta dalam proses pemecahan sertipikat hak atas tanah PPAT TN bertanggung jawab sebatas kuasa untuk melakukan pengurusan ke Kantor Pertanahan atau Badan Pertanahan Nasional dan akibat hukum yang ditimbulkan bahwa Akta Pembagian Hak Bersama dapat dibatalkan dengan dasar penyimpangan syarat formil tata cara pembuatan akta autentik dan Akta Jual Beli dapat dibatalkan dengan dasar adanya penyimpangan dalam pembuatan akta autentik serta pembeli NA tidak termasuk dalam kriteria pembeli yang beritikad baik. ......Land Deeds Officials in its position should work responsibilty, independently, honestly and impartially in the process of splitting freehold title. Also Land Deeds Officials must be responsible for the authentic deeds, namely the Deed of Sharing of Shared Rights and the Deed of Sale and Purchase. The problems is found in the Supreme Court Decision Number 990 PK/PDT/2020 where there is involvement of Land Deeds Officials in the process of splitting freehold title and authentic deeds. This raises problem where the Land Deeds Officials commits an unlawful act against the authentic deed he made where in the Deed of Sharing of Joint Rights the signatures of the owners of the freehold title are falsified by one of the owners who come to sign, causing a legal action. This study will analyze the responsibilities of the Land Deed Official in the process of splitting freehold title followed by the deed of sharing of joint rights and the deed of sale and purchase and the legal consequences if the deed of sharing of joint rights as a reference document is not signed by all the heirs in the process of splitting freehold title. This research uses doctrinal research method which in terms of its nature is descriptive research. The results shows Land Deeds Officials is liable criminally, civilly and administratively and in the process of splitting freehold title, Land Deeds Officials TN is only responsible as power to go to the Land Office and the resulting legal consequences that the Deed of Sharing of Shared Rights can be canceled on the basis of deviation from the formal requirements of the procedure for making an authentic deed and the Deed of Sale and Purchase can be canceled on the basis of irregularities in making an authentic deed and the buyer is not included in the criteria for a good faith buyer.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini menganalisa mengenai adanya perjanjian kredit yang mengandung unsur perbuatan melawan hukum yang diatur dalam Pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2027/K/Pdt/2016. Seseorang berinisial ER bermaksud meminjam uang dari seseorang berinisial I dengan jaminan berupa Sertifikat Hak Milik atas nama Nyonya Hajjah Aminah yang dimilikinya berdasarkan warisan sebagaimana ternyata dalam Akta Wasiat nomor 01 tanggal 6 Januari 2009 yang dibuat oleh Notaris Achmad Kiki Said, SH. I tidak beritikad baik karena tidak dapat dihubungi kembali oleh ER mengenai kelanjutan penyerahan uang yang telah dijanjikan. 2 tahun kemudian pihak bank datang kepada ER dengan maksud untuk mengeksekusi jaminan kredit atas perjanjian kredit yang dibuat oleh seseorang bernama Aminah, selanjutnya diketahui bahwa Sertifikat Hak Milik tersebut adalah atas nama Nyonya Hajjah Aminah yang telah meninggal dunia pada tahun 2009 sedangkan perjanjian kredit dibuat pada tahun 2010 dimana hal tersebut hanya daapt terjadi karena pemalsuan data. Tesis ini ditulis menggunakan data sekunder dengan menganalisis putusan tersebut yang selanjutnya penelitian ini bersifat preskriptif-analitis yang menjabarkan mengenai siapa pihak yang melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum beserta apakah perbuatan yang ia lakukan memenuhi unsur-unsur perbuatan melawan hukum sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata beserta akibat hukum atas perjanjian kredit yang mengandung unsur perbuatan melawan hukum.

---

ABSTRACT
This thesis analyzes the existence of credit agreements containing elements of unlawful acts set forth in Article 1365 of the Civil Code which has a permanent legal force as stated in Supreme Court Decision Number 2027 K Pdt 2016. Someone with the initials of ER intends to borrow money from a person initials I with the guarantee of a Certificate of Ownership on behalf of Mrs. Hajjah Aminah owned by inheritance as evident in Deed of Wasiat number 01 dated January 6, 2009 made by Notary Achmad Kiki Said SH. I is not well intentioned because ER can not be contacted again about the continuation of the surrender money that has been promised. 2 years later the bank came to ER with the intention to execute credit guarantee on credit agreement made by a person named Aminah, it was later found out that the Certificate of Property is on behalf of Mrs. Hajjah Aminah who died in 2009 while loan agreement was made in year 2010 where it can only occur due to data forgery. This thesis is written using secondary data by analyzing the verdict which furthermore this research is prescriptive analytical that describes who do unlawful action and whether the action which he do fulfill elements of action against law as regulated in Article 1365 Book of Civil Law Along with the legal consequences of credit agreements containing elements of unlawful acts.