Proof Power of Authentic Deed Transfer of Land Rights in Legal Perspective of Civil Procedures

Yuda Anrova, Eman Suparman, Hazar Kusmayanti

Abstract


Introduction to The Problem: Evidence is a process carried out by the parties in resolving disputes to prove the arguments presented before the judge who decides the legal dispute so that the judge can decide as fairly as possible. Evidence under the civil procedure law is regulated in Article 164 HIR. Supreme Court decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018 discusses documentary evidence in the form of an agreement to transfer and transfer land rights and states that the deed has no legal force.

Purpose/Objective Study: The purpose of the study was to determine the legal considerations for the strength of authentic deed evidence in the Supreme Court Decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018, connected with civil procedural law. The research method used is a normative juridical approach to the research specification in descriptive-analytical analysis and qualitative normative.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The method used in this research is normative juridical research which focuses on the applicable legal provisions.

Findings: The research results that the authentic deed submitted by the Defendants in the Reconvention as evidence has external and formal evidentiary power. However, authentic deeds that are perfect and binding do not have a coercive or decisive character. Authentic deed evidence can be invalidated if there is evidence of the opponent which can prove otherwise. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court number 3591K/Pdt/2018, the Notarial Deed of the Transfer of Land Rights Agreement has no legal force because land rights have been transferred and building use rights are attached.

Paper Type: Research Article 


Keywords


Proof; Land Rights; Authentic Deed; Supreme Court; Civil Law

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ardiansyah, M. K. (2020). Pembaruan Hukum oleh Mahkamah Agung dalam Mengisi Kekosongan Hukum Acara Perdata di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum, 14(2), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.30641/kebijakan.2020.V14.361-384

Aulia, N. J., Hanifah, M., & Hendra, R. (2017). Eksekusi Riil Terhadap Putusan Hakim yang Telah Mempunyai Kekuatan Hukum Tetap pada Perkara Perdata No.20/P.dt.G/2011/PN.Pbr di Pengadilan Negeri Kelas IA Pekanbaru. Jurnal Online Mahasiswa (JOM) Bidang Ilmu Hukum, 3(2), 1–15. https://jom.unri.ac.id/index.php/JOMFHUKUM/article/view/15461

Crocker, L. (2008). Ethics and the Law’s Burdens of Proof. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 272–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1533-6077.2008.00148.X

Din, T. (2019). Pertanggungjawaban Notaris terhadap Akta Otentik Terindikasi Tindak Pidana. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 19(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2019.V19.171-183

Ekasari, L. P. H. (2019). Kekuatan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara yang Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap Terhadap Pembatalan Sertifikat Hak Milik Atas Tanah Melalui Kewenangan Kepala Kantor Pertanahan. Jurnal Hukum Prasada, 6(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22225/jhp.6.1.1006.22-35

Frebriandini, T. S. (2014). Studi Kekuatan Pembuktian Surat Pada Sengketa Perdata Di Pengadilan Negeri | Frebriandini | Verstek. Jurnal Verstek, 2(1), 176–187. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/verstek/article/view/38848

Harahap, M. Y. (2005). Hukum Acara Perdata tentang Gugatan Persidangan Penyitaan Pembuktian dan Putusan Pengadilan. Sinar Grafika.

Irawan, A. A., Budiono, A. R., & Wijayanti, H. (2018). Pertanggungjawaban Ahli Waris Notaris sebagai Pejabat Umum atas Akta Notaris yang Menimbulkan Kerugian Para Pihak. Lentera Hukum, 5(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v5i2.6992

Iryadi, I. (2019). Kedudukan Akta Otentik dalam Hubungannya dengan Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(4), 796–815. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1546

Juanda, E. (2016). Kekuatan Alat Bukti dalam Perkara Perdata Menurut Hukum Positif Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Galuh Justisi, 4(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.25157/jigj.v4i1.409

Kaplow, L. (2011). Burden of Proof. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954006

Kobis, F. (2017). Kekuatan Pembuktian Surat Menurut Hukum Acara Perdata. Lex Crimen, 6(5), 105–113.

Kusmayanti, H., & Dharmawan, L. (2020). Deed of Settlement as A Dispute Object based on HIR and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2016. Jurnal Hukum Novelty, 11(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v11i2.a16092

Kusmayanti, H., & Hawari, S. Y. (2020). Praktik Eksekusi Riil Tanah

Milik Masyarakat Adat Sunda Wiwitan. SASI, 26(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i3.285

Kusmayanti, H., Putri, S. A., & Rahmainy, L. (2019). Praktik Penyelesaian Sengketa di Pengadilan Agama Melalui Sidang Keliling Dikaitkan dengan Prinsip dan Asas Hukum Acara Perdata. ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata, 4(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.36913/jhaper.v4i2.83

Makarao, M. T. (2009). Pokok Pokok Hukum Acara Perdata. Rineka Cipta.

Mukhtar, S. (2017). Penelitian Hukum Acara Perdata Putusan Hakim

dan Persepsi Keadilan. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol18.no1.1244

Nugroho, B. (2017). Peranan Alat Bukti Dalam Perkara Pidana Dalam

Putusan Hakim Menurut Kuhap. Yuridika, 32(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v32i1.4780

Palit, R. C. (2015). Kekuatan Akta di Bawah Tangan Sebagai Alat Bukti di Pengadilan. LEX PRIVATUM, 3(2), 137–145.

Prasetyo, E. S., Ohoiwutun, Y. A. T., & Halif, H. (2018). Implikasi Yuridis Kebijakan Formulasi Alat Bukti Elektronik. Lentera Hukum, 5(2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v5i2.7469

Rozi, F. (2018). Sistem Pembuktian dalam Proses Persidangan pada

Perkara Tindak Pidana. Jurnal Yuridis Unaja, 1(2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.35141/JYU.V1I2.486

Sajadi, I., Saptanti, N., & Supanto, S. (2015). Tanggung Jawab Notaris terhadap Keabsahan Akta Notaris yang Dibuatnya Atas Penghadap yang Tidak Dapat Membaca dan Menulis. Repertorium, 2(2).

Samudera, T. (1992). Hukum Pembuktian dalam Acara Perdata. Alumni.

Siahaan, K. (2019). Kedudukan Hukum Akta Notaris Sebagai Alat Bukti Pada Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan Surat Dalam Proses Peradilan Pidana. Recital Review, 1(2), 72–88.

Tjukup, I. K., Martiana, N. A., Putra, D. N. R. A., Dananjaya, N. S., & Putra, I. P. R. A. (2015). Penerapan Teori Hukum Pembangunan dalam Mewujudkan Peradilan Sederhana, Cepat dan Biaya Murah. ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata, 1(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.36913/JHAPER.V1I1.8




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v12i2.a18604

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Hukum Novelty

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Hukum Novelty

ISSN 1412-6834 (Print)

ISSN 2550-0090 (Online)

Creative Commons License
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Jurnal Hukum Novelty Stats

 

Jurnal Hukum Novelty is indexed by:

 

   

 

Jurnal Hukum Novelty is member of:

 

Translator/Proofreader Partnership: