<![CDATA[This study aims to analyse the debtor’s liability for default in a debt agreement secured by a Freehold Title Certificate (Sertipikat Hak Milik/SHM) and to examine the judicial reasoning in Supreme Court Decision Number 3227/K/Pdt/2022, reviewed from the perspective of Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights over Land and Objects Related to Land. The research employs a normative juridical approach by analysing statutory provisions, legal doctrines, and judicial decisions. The findings reveal that the debtor’s liability for default is grounded in Article 1239 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata) and reinforced by Article 6 of Law Number 4 of 1996. In this case, the debtor was proven to have failed to fulfil the repayment obligation; however, due to the absence of a Deed of Granting of Mortgage (Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan/APHT), the Freehold Title Certificate could not be directly executed. Consequently, the creditor obtained only a general guarantee under Article 1131 of the Civil Code rather than a specific security right. The judge’s consideration was primarily based on the principle of legal certainty, focusing on the validity of the contract and the debtor’s breach of obligation. Nonetheless, the court did not fully optimise the protective function of the SHM as a legal safeguard for the creditor. Therefore, although the decision successfully achieved legal certainty, it has not yet fully reflected the values of justice and legal utility as intended by the objectives of law.]]>
