Analysis Juridical Authority Court Assessing the Legal Strength of Land Title Certificates Issued Based on Administrative Formalities

A Certificate of Ownership (SHM) is recognized as the strongest and most comprehensive land right, as specified in the UUPA. However, even though this certificate serves as proof of ownership, there are instances where it can be challenged. A notable case illustrating this is Decision Number 120/Pdt.G/1999/PN.Mtr from the Mataram District Court. In this case, a dispute arose due to a discrepancy between the formal certificate holder (the defendant) and the actual owner of the material rights, as another party's name was used on the certificate. This led to a conflict since the person named on the certificate refused to transfer ownership to the plaintiff. The purpose of this study is to analyze and understand the District Court's authority to resolve disputes concerning SHM and to examine the legal consequences for SHM holders and the National Land Agency (BPN) in light of the Mataram District Court Decision Number 120/PDT.G/1999/MTR. The study employs a normative method, incorporating statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that the District Court has the authority to assess and invalidate land title certificates that lack legitimate legal grounds. This authority is consistent with the provisions of relevant laws and is supported by the Supreme Court's Circular Letter Number 10 of 2020. The decision does not constitute an ultra vires action, as it falls within the appropriate legal domain. The legal consequences of this ruling include a loss of legal certainty for formal certificate holders, the obligation for the National Land Agency to rectify land registration data, and a clarification that its responsibility is limited to the administrative aspects of certificate issuance.