ANALISIS HUKUM BAGI PEMBELI DALAM JUAL BELI TANAH YANG OBJEKNYA BERDASARKAN PERJANJIAN NOMINEE=LEGAL ANALYSIS FOR BUYERS IN THE SALE OF LAND WHICH OBJECT IS BASED ON A NOMINEE AGREEMENT

WAHYUNI HARTONO. Analisis Hukum Bagi Pembeli Dalam Jual Beli Tanah Yang Objeknya Berdasarkan Perjanjian Nominee (Dibimbing oleh Abrar Saleng dan Kahar Lahae). Penelitian ini bertujuan (1) Untuk menganalisis kepastian hukum jual beli tanah yang kepemilikannya berdasarkan perjanjian nominee; dan (2) Untuk menganalisis bentuk perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli dalam jual beli tanah yang objek perjanjiannya berdasarkan perjanjian nominee. Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian hukum normatif dengan jenis pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Sumber bahan hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier dengan teknik pengumpulan bahan hukum yaitu melalui studi dokumen atau studi kepustakaan. Selanjutnya data yang dikumpulkan kemudian dianalisis secara deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) Kepastian hukum terhadap jual beli tanah yang kepemilikannya berdasarkan perjanjian nominee yaitu dapat diperoleh ketika telah dilakukan pendaftaran tanah dan adanya bukti kepemilikan terhadap sertifikat hak atas tanah tersebut. Namun pada kenyatannya, berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim, sertifikat hak milik yang tercatat atas nama Tergugat II dinyatakan batal di dalam persidangan. Hal itu menyebabkan Tergugat II sebagai pembeli tidak memperoleh kepastian hukum meskipun proses jual beli yang dilakukan dengan Tergugat I telah dilakukan sesuai dengan proses dan mekanisme yang diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan, begitupun dengan proses peralihan hak yang telah dilakukan sehingga terbit sertifikat hak milik atas nama Tergugat II. (2) Perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli dalam jual beli tanah yang objek perjanjiannya berdasarkan perjanjian nominee yaitu belum terealisasi sepenuhnya hal itu dikarenakan berdasarkan pertimbangan hukumnya Hakim menyatakan sertifikat hak milik atas nama Tergugat II tidak berkekuatan hukum. WAHYUNI HARTONO. Legal Analysis for Buyers in The Sale and Purchase of Land Whose Object Is Based on The Nominee Agreement (Supervised by Abrar Saleng and Kahar Lahae) This research purposes: (1) To analyze the legal certainty of buying and selling land whose ownership is based on a nominee agreement; and (2) To analyze the form of legal protection for buyers in the sale and purchase of land whose object of agreement is based on a nominee agreement. The research uses an normative legal research type with a statutory approach and a case approach. The sources of legal materials used in this research, namely primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials with legal materials collection techniques, namely through document studies or studies literature. Furthermore, the data collected was then analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results of research indicates that: (1) Legal certainty on the sale and purchase of land whose ownership is based on a nominee agreement can be obtained when land registration has been carried out and there is proof of ownership of the certificate of land rights. However, in fact, based on the judge's consideration, the certificate of ownership registered in the name of Defendant II was declared null and void in the trial. This caused Defendant II as the buyer not to obtain legal certainty even though the buying and selling process carried out with Defendant I had been carried out in accordance with the processes and mechanisms regulated in the laws and regulations, as well as the process of transfer of rights that had been carried out so that a certificate of ownership was issued in the name of Defendant II. Defendant II. (2) Legal protection for buyers in the sale and purchase of land whose object of agreement is based on a nominee agreement, which has not been fully realized, is because based on his legal considerations, the Judge stated that the certificate of ownership in the name of Defendant II had no legal force.