<![CDATA[Aldio Yustyvan Anam, Amelia Sri Kusuma Dewi, Rumi Suwardiyati Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: aldio.yustivan.anam@gmail.com ABSTRAK Peneltian bertujuan untuk menganalisis dasar pertimbangan hakim, akibat hukum dan perlindungan hukum pembatalan hak atas tanah sebagai jaminan kredit melalui putusan pengadilan terkait tumpang tindih sertifikat. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan metode Pendekatan Perundang-undangan (Statute Approach) dan Pendekatan Studi Kasus (Case Study Approach). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertimbangan hakim pada putusan PTUN 29/G/2013/PTUN-SRG banyak mengabaikan fakta-fakta hukum seperti gugatan yang lewat waktu dan penerbitan SHGB 1760/Gembor yang cacat hukum karena terbit diatas SHM 548/Gembor. Pembatalan Hak Atas Tanah sebagai jaminan kredit melalui putusan pengadilan terkait tumpang tindih sertipikat memiliki akibat hukum terhadap para pihak dalam sengketa. Perlindungan hukum preventif belum diatur secara khusus dalam Undang-undang, namun perlindungan hukum secara umum diatur dalam 1131 dan pasal 1132 KUHPerdata. Perlindungan hukum represif dapat dilakukan dengan jalur non-litigasi dan litigasi. Jalur non-litigasi dapat dilakukan dengan mediasi, negosiasi dan reconditioning, sedangkan jalur litigasi dapat dilakukan dengan mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri. Kata Kunci: Perlindungan Hukum, Tumpang Tindih Sertipikat, Akibat Hukum ABSTRACT This research aims to analyze the basic consideration made by the judges, legal consequences, and legal protection regarding the revocation of freehold title of land set as the security for credit application under a court decision regarding overlapping certificates. This research employed normative-juridical methods, and statutory and case approaches. The research results reveal that the consideration of the judges set in the Decision of State Administrative Court Number 29/G/2013/PTUN-SRG often overlook legal facts regarding the expiring lawsuit and the issuance of SHGB 1760/Gembor that was considered legally flawed because this certificate was issued after SHM 548/Gembor. The revocation of this certificate certainly left legal consequences affecting the parties involved in the dispute. Preventive action, however, is not regulated in Article 1131 and Article 1132 of the Civil Code. Repressive action could be performed through non-litigation and litigation processes, where the former may take mediation, negotiation, and reconditioning, while the latter involves lawsuit submitted to the District Court. Keywords: legal protection, overlapping certificates, legal consequences]]>
