Overlapping Land Rights in Indonesia
An interactive comparison of the two primary legal doctrines used to resolve complex land disputes: the protection of a **Good-Faith Buyer** versus the **Priority of Time** principle.
Choose a Dispute Scenario
The legal principle applied by Indonesian courts depends entirely on the nature of the competing claims. Select a path to explore the specific case study and the legal doctrine that governs it.
Doctrine 1: The Buyer in Good Faith
This doctrine is the primary legal shield in conflicts between a registered title and an unregistered claim. It is designed to provide legal certainty and protect bona fide purchasers who reasonably rely on the public land registry. The key case is the **Karanganyar Dispute**.
Criteria for Protection (SEMA No. 4 of 2016)
Doctrine 2: Priority of Time ("First in Time, First in Right")
This principle is the definitive rule for resolving disputes between two or more authentic, registered certificates. It prioritizes the chronological order of the land registry to ensure its integrity. The landmark case is **Supreme Court Decision No. 976 K/Pdt/2015**.
The Decisive Rule
Certificate Issued: 1982
VALID
Certificate Issued: 1993
VOID
The Supreme Court reasons that once the BPN issues a certificate, it has exhausted its authority over that land. Any subsequent certificate is legally flawed from its inception, regardless of the second buyer's good faith.
Visual Comparison of Doctrines
This chart visually summarizes the key differences between the two legal doctrines, helping to clarify when and how each principle is applied by the courts.
Common Ground: BPN's Role & Resolution Paths
While the legal doctrines differ, both types of disputes highlight systemic issues and share common pathways to resolution.
BPN's Administrative Liability
In both scenarios, the dispute originates from an administrative failure by the National Land Agency (BPN). This exposes the BPN to potential liability for an unlawful act under Art. 1365 of the Civil Code, creating a strong incentive for them to facilitate non-litigation settlements like mediation.
Resolution Pathways
Parties can choose between formal **Litigation** (in Civil or Administrative Courts) or **Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)**, such as mediation. ADR is often faster, more cost-effective, and allows for more flexible, interest-based solutions, as seen in the Karanganyar case.