Application of section 187 Civil Procedure Code

https://www.ijrrjournal.com/IJRR_Vol.7_Issue.7_July2020/Abstract_IJRR006.html, 2020

Irrevocable power of attorney cannot be revoked by principal, but it has been prohibited by PP No.24/1997 on land registration and the decree of The Minister of Internal Affairs No.14/1982 on the prohibition of using irrevocable power of attorney. In practice, however, it is still used. In the Supreme Court’s ruling No.402/K/TUN/2017, the claim filed the plaintiff is the use of irrevocable power of attorney as the reason for land title transfer in which it is used by the defendant to sale the land with the certificate No.1/Setaman Jernih; this transaction does not involve the plaintiff as its owner, and The Head of The Land Office of Serdang Bedagai issues it in the name of the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff is harmed. The research used descriptive qualitative method which describe in detail and systematically. It types was juridical normative. Primary data and secondary data were gathered by conducting library research. The result of the research showed that the position of irrevocable power of attorney in land title transfer is a unity with transaction. Due to the development of the need based on freedom of contract, it is functioned to avoid any problem in the future. However, when it stands by itself it is prohibited by the decre of The Minister of Internal Affairs No.14/1982 on the prohibition of using irrevocable power of attorney and PP No.24/1997 on land registration which can cause the revocation of the certificate, in the ruling No.402/K/TUN/2017, the Supreme Court rejects the defendant’s request since it is legally defective and contrary to the decree of The Minister of Internal Affairs No.14/1982 on the prohibition of using irrevocable power of attorney and PP No.24/1997 on land registration.

Facts: In 2001, Madayag filed with the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan an application for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 1,492-m2 located in Barangay Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Attached to the application was a tracing cloth of Survey Plan Psu-01-008438, approved by the LMS-DENR, Region 1, San Fernando City. SM opposed the application because allegedly, the lot encroached on the properties it recently purchased from several lot owners. SM also filed with the DENR a petition for cancellation of the survey plan. Afterwhich, SM filed with the RTC an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceeding in the land registration case alleging that the trial court should wait for DENR's resolution of the petition. After the trial, the RTC suspended the registration proceedings on the ground that the petition for cancellation of the survey plan filed by SM with DENR is prejudicial to the determination of the land registration case since a survey plan is one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings. When Madayag appealed to CA, the latter ratiocinated that the survey plan, which was duly approved by the DENR, should be accorded the presumption of regularity, and that the RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising from an application for registration. Issue/s: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over land registration proceedings is affected if there is a petition filed in DENR to cancel the survey plan, one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings. Ruling: Yes. The Court held that as an incident to its authority to settle all questions over the title of the subject property, the land registration court may resolve the underlying issue of whether the subject property overlaps the petitioner's properties without necessarily having to declare the survey plan as void. Furthermore, It stated that a land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will alter a valid and existing certificate of title. An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title, which is not allowed by law. However, the RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondent's survey plan vis-à-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-ininterest. After all, a survey plan precisely serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 2019

Making a testament is bound by the form and method determined by the laws and regulations. When it is ignored, it may result cancellation to the testament. Similarly, grants in any law are basically irrevocable; however, if it does not meet certain conditions, the grant can be canceled. One example is a lawsuit for the cancellation of a will and a deed made before a Notary/ Conveyancer in Padang City. Even though the deed is physically and formally in accordance with the provisions determined by the Law, however, there is an error materially from the contents of the deed due to an unlawful action. Regarding to this, the authors formulated the research problems as follows: 1. What is the legal basis of the plaintiff’s claim to the Padang District Court?, 2. What is the basis for consideration of the Padang District Court judge in deciding the case Number: 57/PDT.G/2012/PN.Pdg?, and 3. How is the implementation of decision Number: 57/PDT.G/2012/PN.Pdg concerning the cancellation of th...

Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 2018

The arrangement of mortgage execution through Parate Executie in the Mortgage Act aims to provide convenience to creditors in the fulfillment of their receivables when the debtor is defaulted, i.e. the creditor can sell the object of mortgage right on his own power without having to go through the judiciary. However, the ease with which the creditors are in fact cannot be utilized due to differences in the interpretation of the regulation on execution parate in the Mortgage Act (Law No. 4 of 1996), the difference is increasingly tapered by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3210/K/Pdt/1984 which eliminates Bandung High Court Decision related to the case of Auction of Mortgage Objects through the absence of fiat from the Chairman of local District Court which also becomes a jurisprudence in the execution of mortgage objects. Based on this background, then the issues of discussion are about (1) what is the ratio decidendi of the Decree of MARI Number...