Based on Article 20 Law No. 4 of 1996 about the mortgage right of land and things attached
to it (UUHT), there are three alternative ways determined to be used by creditor in execution
of guaranteed property of mortgage right if debtor violates the agreement (wansprestasi),
they are parate executie, execution based on title executive in certificate of mortgage right,
and underhand sale.
Parate executie stipulated in Article 6 of UUHT was analyzed in this thesis. Parate executie
is an easy and cheap execution because when the debtor violates the agreement creditor can
easily propose a mortgage of guaranteed property to Auction and State Property Service
(KPKNL) without fiat of district court and not follow the regulation of Civil Procedural Law.
The fact is Auction and State Property Service is still doubt to do mortgage on parate
executie without fiat of district court. The purpose of this thesis is acquiring an understanding
in parate executie regulation of mortgage right whether the first holder creditor should have
fiat of district court or not in the execution of guaranteed property.
The method used in this thesis is normative approach with consideration that the basis point
of analysis is legislation related on parate executie of mortgage right. From the analysis, the
writer concluded that the obstacle in the parate executie of mortgage right is the existence of
shift in meaning. It happens because of the yurisprudence of Supreme Court of Indonesia
Republic (MARI) in adjudication No. 3210 K/Pdt/1984, January 30, 1986 that then stated in
UUHT, in which the meaning of parate executie and execution based on certificate of
mortgage right in mortgage grosse acte is mismashed.