•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Abstract

A dispute over ownership of land rights between the real Original Owner and a Good Faith Purchaser can be assumed as a dispute over legal principles in the field of civil law, namely: the legal principle of Nemo Plus Iuris Ad Alium Transferre Potest Quam Ipse Habet, and the legal principle of Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet (Nemo Dat Rule) against the legal principle of good faith (bona fides). The legal principle of Nemo Plus Iuris Ad Alium Transferre Potest Quam Ipse Habet and the legal principle of Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet (Nemo Dat Rule) are legal principles that defend the interests of the Original Owner when suing a Good Faith Purchaser. On the other hand, the legal principle of good faith (bona fides) defends and protects Good Faith Purchaser from claims by the real Original Owner. This article discusses and presents 3 (three) main points, all of which are: firstly, analyzing the legal principle of Nemo Plus Iuris Ad Alium Transferre Potest Quam Ipse Habet, the legal principle of Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet (Nemo Dat Rule), and the legal principle of good faith (Bona Fides); secondly, analyzing the types of claims and determine the most appropriate type of claim for disputes over ownership of immovable property between the real Original Owner and the Good Faith Purchaser; lastly, doing an analysis on how to conceptualize good faith. The research method used in this article is normative juridical research with statutory, case and conceptual approaches. There are several research findings, namely; first, there has been a shift in the paradigm of judges who are initially more inclined to defend the Good Faith Purchaser than the real Original Owner, to become more neutral in placing the legal principle of Nemo Plus Iuris Ad Alium Transferre Potest Quam Ipse Habet and the legal principle of Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet (Nemo Dat Rule) with the principle of good faith (Bona Fides); second, the application of procedural law practices regarding types of claims for ownership disputes between the real Original Owner and the Good Faith Purchaser, which is commonly used in practice, turns out to be inappropriate; finally, conceptualizing good faith is done by conceptualizing bad faith based on the permanent jurisprudence of court decisions.

Keywords: nemo plus iuris, nemo dat, bona fides, good faith.

Bahasa Abstract

Abstrak

Dalam sengketa kepemilikan hak atas tanah antara Pemilik Asal (asli) dengan Pembeli Beritikad Baik dapat diasumsikan sebagai perseteruan asas-asas hukum dalam bidang hukum perdata, yaitu: asas hukum ‘nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet’, dan asas hukum ‘nemo dat quad non habet’ (‘nemo dat rule’) berhadapan dengan asas hukum itikad baik (‘bona fides’, atau ‘good faith’). Asas hukum ‘nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet’ dan asas hukum ‘nemo dat quad non habet’ (‘nemo dat rule’) adalah asas hukum yang membela kepentingan dari Pemilik Asal (asli) ketika menggugat Pembeli Beritikad Baik. Di sisi sebaliknya, asas hukum itikad baik (‘bona fides’, atau ‘good faith’) membela dan melindungi Pembeli Beritikad Baik dari gugatan Pemilik Asal (asli). Dalam artikel ini mendiskusikan dan menyajikan 3 (tiga) pokok pembahasan yaitu; Pertama, melakukan analisa tentang asas hukum ‘nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet’, asas hukum ‘nemo dat quad non habet’ (‘nemo dat rule’), dan asas hukum itikad baik (‘bona fides’, atau ‘good faith’); Kedua, melakukan analisa tentang macam-macam gugatan dan menentukan macam gugatan yang paling tepat untuk sengketa kepemilikan benda tidak bergerak antara Pemilik Asal (asli) dengan Pembeli Beritikad Baik; Terakhir, melakukan analisa tentang bagaimana cara untuk melakukan konseptualisasi itikad baik. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada artikel ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Terdapat beberapa hasil penelitian, yaitu; Pertama, telah terjadi pergeseran paradigma Hakim yang pada mulanya lebih cenderung membela Pembeli Beritikad Baik daripada Pemilik Asal (asli), berubah menjadi lebih netral di dalam mendudukkan asas hukum ‘nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet’ dan asas hukum ‘nemo dat quad non habet’ (‘nemo dat rule’) dengan asas hukum Itikad baik (‘bona fides’, atau ‘good faith’); Kedua, penerapan praktik hukum acara tentang macam gugatan sengketa kepemilikan antara Pemilik Asal (asli) dengan Pembeli Beritikad Baik yang dalam praktiknya lazim digunakan ternyata kurang tepat; Terakhir, untuk mengkonseptualisasi itikad baik dilakukan dengan cara melakukan konseptualisasi itikad tidak baik berdasarkan yurisprudensi tetap putusan-putusan lembaga peradilan.

Keywords: nemo plus iuris, nemo dat, bona fides, good faith.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Duncan, WD. Joint Ventures Law in Australia. Sydney: The Federation Press, 3rd edition, 2012.

Hernoko, Agus Yudha. Hukum Perjanjian Asas Proporsionalitas Dalam Kontrak Komersial. Yogyakarta: Mediatama, 2008.

Huge, Robert. Rome: A Cultural, Visual, and Personal History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.

Khairandy, Ridwan. Iktikad Baik Dalam Kebebasan Berkontrak. Jakarta: UI Press, 2004.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2009.

Panizzon, Marion. Good Faith in the Jurisprudence of the WTO : The Protection of Legitimate Expectations, Good Faith Interpretation and Fair Dispute Settlement. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. Accessed on December 8, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Purbacaraka, Purnadi & Soerjono Soekanto, Perundang-undangan dan Yurisprudensi. Bandung: Alumni, 1979.

Putro, Widodo Dwi. et. al., Pembeli Beritikad Baik Dalam Sengketa Perdata Berobyek Tanah. Jakarta: LeIP, 2016.

Rusli, Hardijan. Hukum Perjanjian Indonesia dan Common Law. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Cetakan Kedua, 1996.

Santoso, Urip. Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group, 2015.

Soelistyo, Henry. Bad Faith Dalam Hukum Merek. Jakarta: Maharsa Artha Mulia, 2017.

Soerodjo, Irawan. Kepastian Hukum Hak Atas Tanah di Indonesia. Surabaya: Arkola, Cet. 1, 2013.

Sofyan, Sri Soedewi Asjchoen. Hukum Perdata: Hukum Benda. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 1974.

Subekti, R. Hukum Perjanjian. Jakarta: Intermasa,1984.

Subekti, R. Aneka Perjanjian. Bandung: PT. Aditya Bakti, 2014.

Articles

Ariyanto, “Perbandingan Asas Iktikad Baik: Dalam Perjanjian Menurut Sistem Hukum Civil Law (Eropa Kontinental) dan Common Law (Anglo-Saxon),” Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Singaraja, Volume 2, Number 2, August 2016: 114.

Balavar, Elham “The Doctrine of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet and Its Exceptions,” Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 4(5), 2014: 7-14.

Bakker, P.S. “Redelijkheid en billijkheid als gedragsnorm,” Kluwer, 2012: 147-154.

Jenie, Siti Ismijati. Itikad Baik, Perkembangan dari Asas Hukum Khusus Menjadi Asas Hukum Umum di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2007: 3.

Khairandy, Ridwan. “Itikad Baik dalam Pelaksanaan Kontrak: Super Eminent Principle yang Memerlukan Pengertian dan Tolak Ukur Objektif,” Jurnal Hukum, Number 3, Volume 14, July 2008: 343-358.

Kochan, Donald J. “Dealing with Dirty Deeds: Matching Nemo dat Preferences with Property Law Pragmatism,” Kansas Law Review, Vol. 64, Number 1. November 2015: 1.

Martinelli, Imelda. “Asas Itikad Baik Sebagai Unsur Dalam Hukum Perikatan atau Hukum Perjanjian”, proceeding Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Keperdataan IV, Mencari Model Pembaruan Hukum Perikatan: Penormaan Prinsip dan Langkah Legislasi (Palembang 9-11 Oktober 2017): 273-284.

Mason, A. F. “Contract, Good Faith and Equitable Standards in Fair Dealing,” The Law Quaterly Review, Vol. 116, January, 2000: 66-94.

Mitchell, Andrew D. “Good Faith In WTO Dispute Settlement.” Melbourne Journal of International Law, Volume 7, 2006: 340.

Nugroho, Aris Setyo. “Penerapan Asas Itikad Baik Pada Fase Pra Kontrak Dalam Hukum Civil Law dan Common Law,” Jurnal Repertorium, Edisi 1 (Januari-Juni 2014): 74-82.

Pejovic, Caslav. “Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Path Leading to the Same Goal,” Victoria University Wellington Law Review, Vol. 32, 2001: 818-819.

Pozen, E. David, “Constitutional Bad Faith,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 129, No. 4, 2016, 890.

Sumanto, Listyowati. “The Future On Publication System Of Land Registration In Indonesia,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, Vol. 6, Issue 03 March 2020: 1399-1404.

Hessenlink, Martin Willem. “The Concept of Good Faith,” In A. S. Hartkamp, M. W. Hesselink, E. H. Hondius, C. Mak, & C. E. du Perron (Eds), Toward a European civil code. 4th rev. and exp. Ed, pp. 619-649. Kluwer Law International. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1762630. Accessed on October 1, 2021.

Long, Tran Thang. “The Application of Estoppel in International Law and Experiences for Vietnam,” Vietnamese Journal of Legal Sciences, Vol. 01, No. 1, 2019: 89-114. DOI: 10.2478/VJLS-2020-0006. Accessed on October 3, 2021.

MacGibbon, I. C. “Estoppel in International Law,” The International and Comparative Law Quaterly, Vol. 7. No. 3, 1958: 468-513. http://www.jstor.org/stable/755277. Accessed on October 3, 2021.

Nafziger, James A.R. “Repose Legislation: A Threat to The Protection of The World’s Cultural Heritage,” California Western International Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1987: 250-265.

https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwilj/vol17/iss2/3.

Talya Ucaryilmaz, “The Principle Of Good Faith In Public International Law,” Estudios de Deusto, Vol. 68/1 (June 2020): 43-59. Accessed on October 1, 2021. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18543/ed-68(1)-2020pp43-59.

Whittaker, Simon and Reinhard Zimmermann, “Good Faith in European Contract Law: Surveying the Legal Landscape,” Cambridge University Press, 2000, 17.

Yee, Woi Pei (2001), “Protecting Parties’ Reasonable Expectations: A General Principle of Good Faith,” Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, Published Online 27 April 2015, 1:2, p. 221, accessed 27 September 2021, DOI: 10.1080/14729342.2001.11421393.

References to Indonesian Law

Constitution

Code of Civil Law, translated by R. Soebekti and R. Tjitrosudibio.

Herzien Inlandsch Reglement.

Reglement op de Rechtsvordering.

Basic Agrarian Law Number 5 of 1960.

Government Regulations

Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997.

Supreme Court Circular

SCC No. 7/2012, Rapat Pleno Kamar Perdata.

SCC No. 5/2014, Rapat Pleno Kamar Perdata.

References to Indonesian Cases

Kutai Barat District Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 22/Pdt.G/2013/PN.KUBAR,” in 2013.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 112 K/Sip/1955,” in 1956.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1237 K/Sip/1973,” in 1973.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 52 K/Sip/1975,” in 1975.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 701 K/Sip/1974,” in 1976.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 4340 K/PDT/1986,” in 1986.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 3609 K/PDT/1985,” in 1987.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1816 K/PDT/1989,” in 1989.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 3201 K/PDT/1991,” in 1996.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 3699 K/PDT/1996,” in 2000.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 2191 K/PDT/2000,” in 2001.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1861 K/PDT/2005,” in 2005.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1847 K/PDT/2006,” in 2006.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 429 K/PDT/2003,” in 2007.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1068 K/PDT/2008,” in 2008.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1498 K/PDT/2006,” in 2008.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1671 K/PDT/2008,” in 2009.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 2318 K/PDT/2009,” in 2009.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1091 K/Pdt/2010,” in 2010.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 143 K/PDT/2011,” in 2011.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1210 K/PDT/2011,” in 2011.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 2831 K/PDT/2011,” in 2011.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 561 K/PDT/2012,” in 2012.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 114 K/PDT/2013,” in 2013.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 1923 K/PDT/2013,” in 2013.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 691 K/PDT/2013,” in 2014.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 2255 K/PDT/2014,” in 2014.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 14 PK/PDT/2008,” in 2008.

Supreme Court of Republik of Indonesia, “Decision No. 710 PK/PDT/2011,” in 2011.

Online Websites

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/purchaser-in-good-fatih.html. Accessed on September 24, 2021.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Accessed on December 10, 2021.

Dictionaries

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. West Publishing Co, 1979.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. West, Thomson business, 2004.

Download

Share

COinS