Hidayati, Nuri (2019) Kewenangan Kreditor dalam Menjual Obyek Jaminan Berupa Tanah dan Bangunan Letter C Tanpa Melalui Lelang yang Pembebanannya Belum Didaftarkan. Magister thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
Penulisan tesis ini membahas tentang keabsahan perjanjian kredit yang dibuat dengan disertai jaminan berupa tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C tetapi tidak diikat oleh akta notariil berupa Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan (SKMHT), Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan (APHT), dan Sertifikat Hak Tanggungan (SHT), serta membahas perihal tindakan kreditor berwenang atau tidak menjual obyek jaminan tersebut kepada pihak pembeli (Eko Purnomo) yang penjualannya dilakukan secara langsung di bawah tangan tanpa melalui perantara Kantor Lelang (lembaga KPKNL) ataupun titel eksekutorial pada Pengadilan Negeri yang proses pembebanannya belum didaftarkan ke Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN). Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menganalisis dan menemukan keabsahan perjanjian kredit yang dibuat dengan obyek jaminan tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C walaupun tanpa SKMHT, APHT, dan SHT. Serta untuk menganalisis berwenang tidaknya kreditor menjual obyek jaminan yang hanya berupa tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C secara langsung tanpa melalui lelang yang pembebanannya belum didaftarkan ke Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN). Berdasarkan hal tersebut, permasalahan yang dapat diangkat dalam tesis ini diperoleh dari analisis kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Lumajang Nomor.41/ Pdt.G/2015/Pn.Lmj. yaitu : Pertama, Bagaimana keabsahan perjanjian kredit yang dibuat dengan jaminan tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C tanpa adanya Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan (SKMHT), Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan (APHT), dan Sertifikat Hak Tanggungan (SHT)?, dan Kedua, Apakah kewenangan kreditor untuk menjual obyek jaminan berupa tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C secara langsung tanpa melalui lelang yang pembebanannya belum didaftarkan ke Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) dapat dibenarkan menurut hukum?. Penelitian tesis ini menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dan pendekatan yang digunakan ialah pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Perihal sumber bahan hukum yang diterapkan dalam tesis ini ialah bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier (non hukum), dengan diikuti metode pengumpulan bahan hukum dan metode analisis bahan hukum. Hasil penelitian dalam tesis ini, disimpulkan : Pertama, bahwa perjanjian kredit yang dibuat ialah sah dan mengikat secara hukum atas dasar kesepakatan yang telah disepakati bersama dengan diikuti adanya penyerahan sejumlah uang dari kreditor kepada debitor sebagai obyek perjanjiannya, hal ini sesuai ketentuan Pasal 1320 KUHPerdata tentang syarat sahnya perjanjian. Sehingga perjanjian kredit yang telah dilaksanakan merupakan perjanjian prinsipil (pokok) yang tidak dapat dibatalkan atau ditarik kembali oleh kedua belah pihak dan berlaku sebagai undang-undang bagi mereka yang membuatnya. Sedangkan untuk tanah dan bangunan bukti kepemilikan Letter C yang dijadikan sebagai jaminan dalam perjanjian kredit tersebut dinyatakan tidak sah dan batal demi hukum akibat tidak mengindahkan amanat dari Pasal 10 Ayat (3) UUHT, bahwa untuk tanah dengan hak lama seperti Letter C untuk dapat dijadikan sebagai hak tanggungan, maka pembebanannya masih dapat dimungkinkan asalkan pemberiannya dilakukan secara bersamaan dengan proses permohonan pendaftaran hak atas tanahnya ke Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN). Sejatinya sebuah jaminan (agunan) hanya sebagai perjanjian ikutan (accessoir) yang lahir dari perjanjian pokok (perjanjian kredit). Kedua, kreditor tidak memiliki kewenangan sebаgаi subyek hukum selаku bаdаn hukum untuk menjual tanah dan bangunan Letter C kepada pihаk pembeli (Eko Purnomo). Perihаl ketidаkberwenаngаn tersebut didаsаrkаn pаdа ketentuаn ketidаkberwenаngаn kreditor untuk bertindаk (hаndeling onbevoegheid). Ketidakberwenangan tersebut dalam konteks menjual tanah dan bangunan Letter C kepunyaan debitor tergolong kategori PMH dalam Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata. Adapun pihak yang berwenang dalam menjuаl tanah dan bangunan Letter C hanyalah pihak debitor sebagai pemilik tanah yang namanya tercantum dalam surat tanah Letter C (merujuk pada ketentuan Instruksi Presiden). Sehingga langkah yang dapat ditempuh kreditor аtаs perjаnjiаn kredit yаng hаnyа berdаsаr pаdа perjаnjiаn utаng piutаng yаng dibuаt secаrа di bаwаh tаngаn tаnpа аdаnyа pengikаtаn аktа notаriil, kreditor dаpаt mengambil langkah melalui proses litigasi (pengadilan negeri) ataupun melakukan upaya berunding secara musyawarah diantara debitor dan kreditor guna memperoleh pelunasan piutangnya.
English Abstract
These thesis discusses the validity agreements of accompanied guarantees as form land and buildings proof ownership of Letter C but didn’t bound by a notarial deed as Power of Attorney Charging Mortgage (SKMHT), Giving Deed Mortgage (APHT), and Mortgage Certificate (SHT), also discussing the actions of the authorized creditors or not sell the collateral object to the buyer (Eko Purnomo) whose seller are carried out directly under the hand without going through the auction office or executorial title at the District Court whose the assessment process has not been registered by National Land Agency (BPN). The purpose of this study was to analyze and find the validity of the credit agreement made with the guarantee object of land and the buildings of Letter C even though there was no Power of Attorney Charging Mortgage (SKMHT), Giving Deed Mortgage (APHT), and Mortgage Certificate (SHT). Also to analyze of the authorized creditors or not sell the collateral objects that are only in the form of land and buildings of Letter C directly without going through the auction office whose the assessment process has not been registered by National Land Agency (BPN). Based of the problems, that can be raised in this thesis are obtained from analysis of the case Lumajang District Court Decision Number. 41/ Pdt.G/2015/Pn.Lmj. that is : The First, How is the validity of the credit agreement made with collateral for land and buildings proof of ownership of Letter C without the Power of Attorney Charging Mortgage (SKMHT), Giving Deed Mortgage (APHT), and Mortgage Certificate (SHT)?. And The Secondy, What is the authority of the creditors to sell collateral objects in the form of land and buildings proof of ownership of Letter C directly without going through an auction, with the assessment is not yet registered by National Land Agency (BPN) can be justified in accordance with the rule of law?. These thesis research method is used a type of normative juridical research and the approach used is the statutory approach (statute approach), conceptual approach (conceptual approach) and case approach (case approach). Regarding the sources of legal materials applied in this thesis are primary, secondary and tertiary (non-legal) legal materials, followed by collecting legal materials method and analyzing legal materials methods. The results of the research are summarized: The first, that the credit agreement made is legal and legally binding on the based of an agreed agreement with the submission of a sum of money from the creditors to the debtors as the object of the agreement, in accordance with Article 1320 of the Civil Code legal terms of agreement. So as the credit agreement that has been implemented is a principal agreement (principal) that cannot be canceled or withdrawn by both parties and applied as constitution law for those who make it. While land and buildings, proof of ownership of Letter C which is used as collateral in the credit agreement is declared invalid and celcelled void due to not heeding the mandate of Article 10 Paragraph (3) UUHT, that for land with old rights such as Letter C to be used as mortgages, the imposition can still be made as long as it is given simultaneously with the process of applying for land rights to the National Land Agency (BPN). Indeed a guarantee (collateral) is only a contract of agreement (accessoire) which comes from principal agreement (credit agreement). Secondly, the creditors do not have the authority as a legal subject of the legal entity to sell collateral objects in the form of land and buildings of Letter C to the buyer (Eko Purnomo). About no no creditors authority based on the terms no creditors authority in acting (hаndeling onbevoegheid). no authority in the context sell land and buildings of Letter C have a debtors and the category classified of Acts against the Law (PMH) in Article 1365 of the Civil Code. The authority in sell land and building Letter C is only the debtors as the owner of the land whose name is listed in the land books Letter C (refer to the provisions of the Presidential Instruction). So that the steps that can be taken by creditors to credit agreement which are only based on a a credit agreement that is made underhanded without the binding of a notarial certificate, The creditor can take steps through the litigation process (District Court) or undertake deliberative between the debtors and the creditors to obtain the settlement of the receivables.
Other obstract
-
| Item Type: | Thesis (Magister) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | TES/346.073/HID/k/2019/041906677 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | CRIDIT-LAW AND LEGISLATION, DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, WARRANTY |
| Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 346 Private law > 346.07 Commercial law > 346.073 Loan |
| Divisions: | S2/S3 > Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Budi Wahyono Wahyono |
| Date Deposited: | 17 Dec 2019 06:37 |
| Last Modified: | 21 Oct 2021 06:54 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/177048 |
Preview |
Text
Nuri Hidayati (2).pdf Download (4MB) | Preview |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |