<![CDATA[Notaries who assume custody of a predecessor’s notarial protocol are frequently named as defendants in civil proceedings concerning deeds executed by the previous notary. This practice creates legal uncertainty regarding the scope of the protocol-holding notary’s liability for deeds that were not executed by them. This study aims to examine the legal responsibility of protocol-holding notaries and the legal protection afforded to them when they are named as defendants in civil litigation. The theoretical framework employs Satjipto Rahardjo’s Theory of Legal Protection and Subekti’s Theory of Legal Responsibility. This research adopts a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, analytical, and case approaches. Legal materials were obtained through library research involving primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources and were analyzed using grammatical and systematic interpretation, as well as analogy and legal refinement constructions. The findings indicate that, in judicial practice, protocol-holding notaries are still frequently named as defendants because they possess or maintain the disputed deeds or minutes. However, there is no explicit legal provision establishing the limits of their liability for deeds executed by another notary. The Notary Position Act should expressly regulate the responsibilities of protocol-holding notaries, limiting their role to safeguarding and maintaining the notarial protocol and providing testimony concerning the relevant deed. They should not be treated as parties responsible for the substantive validity or contents of deeds executed by their predecessors.]]>
