<![CDATA[Land disputes involving factual possession without formally recognized rights remain a significant challenge to legal certainty in Indonesia, particularly when physical occupation conflicts with a registered land right. Differences in judicial assessment of documentary evidence, factual possession, and applicable legal principles may produce inconsistent outcomes and weaken the predictability of land dispute resolution. This study examines how judicial reasoning shapes the resolution of disputes involving factual possession without formally recognized rights and assesses its contribution to legal certainty. The study employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. It examines the legal status of factual possession, the evidentiary position of registered land rights, and the judicial reasoning reflected in Medan High Court Decision Number 100/PDT/2024/PT MDN. The findings show that differences in judicial reasoning can produce divergent legal outcomes when courts assign different weight to formal land documents, physical possession, and procedural considerations. The study also finds that insufficiently reasoned judicial decisions may weaken the predictability of land dispute resolution and create uncertainty for both registered rights holders and factual occupants. The study concludes that courts require a coherent and transparent reasoning framework to reconcile formal land rights with relevant factual circumstances while maintaining consistency, fairness, and legal certainty.]]>
