SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed his claim in full.

The Court did not concur with the judgment of the lower court, but still found that the appellant's claim lacked clarity in terms of, among other things, its inclusion of beneficiaries who had already passed away, and persons who had replaced those beneficiaries that had passed away. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had:

1. granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra);
2. granted the respondent custody of the parties' two children;
3. ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance monthly until the children are independent; and
4. stipulated the parties' joint assets were to be split 50/50, after a joint-debt of IDR 5 million had been repaid.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to prepare its own decision, amending the lower court's reference to the parties' joint-debt.

N passed away in 1963 and his wife B passed away in 1989. They stipulated as their beneficiaries their three children: B bin M (appellant), Z bin N (first respondent) and H binti M (deceased). H binti M passed away in 2006 and was survived by her husband M bin H (second respondent), as well as her five children (third-seventh respondents).

With regards to N and B's joint assets (several parcels of land) bequeathed to their children, the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) granted the three children the following shares: B bin M, as the son: 2/4; Z bin N, as a daughter: 1/4; and H binti N, as a daughter: 1/4. Of H binti N's 1/4 share, her husband (second respondent) was granted three-quarters, with the remainder being distributed between the children (third-seventh respondents), the daughters receiving 3/24, and the sole son 6/24.

In affirming the decision of the lower court, the Court noted that it had urged the parties to reconcile prior to and after its adjudication, but that the respondents had maintained their claim.

T passed away on 6 November 1987 and Kh binti B (T's wife) on 28 October 2006. Kh binti B bequeathed IDR 614,515,366.00 and several parcels of land (the estate) to her five children (the appellants and respondents). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) found that the three sons were to receive two-eighths each of the estate, and her two daughters one-eighth each.

The daughters (second and third appellants) and one of the sons (first appellant) sought to challenge the lower court's ruling. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, however, finding there to be no incorrect application of the law.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the appellant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent, but had also ordered the appellant to pay IDR 5.5 million in financial support to the respondent for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), mut'ah (divorce compensation) and maskan (accommodation). In regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the lower court had stipulated the parties' joint assets and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis. It also granted the respondent custody of the parties' child.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to hand down its own judgment, amending some of the formulaic errors it noted in the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed his claim in its entirety.

The Court disagreed with the judgment of the lower court for several reasons. Firstly, the respondent, in his response (dated 4 August 2009), had stated that the object in dispute was part of his parents' estate and was bequeathed to the respondent via a deed executed in 1996 (dated 27 December 1996) while his parents were still alive. While this accorded with information provided by two of the respondent's witnesses (Ibrahim Bin Risyad, and the respondent's older sibling Asiah), it contradicted the respondent's own rebuttal.

On the other hand, the appellant's claim was supported by information provided by witnesses the appellant had produced. Moreover, the elements of a bequest had all been met, most importantly the requirement of consent. The Court made specific mention of the importance of consent in establishing a gift, quoting Syekh Sayyid Sabiq in Sunnah Jilid III.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the 1996 deed as having any legal effect, and found the bequest to be in the appellant's favour.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kutacane Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined the parties' marriage to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The lower court had also deemed several parcels of land to be joint assets of the parties and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's reasoning or decision, but opted to improve the formulation of its decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The lower court had also granted the appellant's counterclaim in part, ordering the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 10 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 7.5 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), IDR 10 million for maskan (accommodation), IDR 5 million for kiswah (clothing), as well as granting the appellant custody of the parties' three children, and ordering the respondent to pay child maintenance until all three children had become of age. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties 15 parcels of land, four vehicles and one motorcycle, as well as several debts owed to several banks.

The Court disagreed with the amount the lower court had ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant as compensation, amending the order to IDR 7.5 million for iddah, IDR 7.5 million for mut'ah, IDR 5 million for kiswah, while it overturned the order to pay IDR 10 million for maskan. It specified that the respondent pay IDR 2.5 million in child maintenance, however. It also had qualms with the lower court stipualting two particular objects as joint assets, given a third party's claim over them.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kualasimpang Shari'a Court (lower court), which had stipulated as joint assets of the parties a two-storey shophouse, household appliances and furniture, and a debt of IDR 27 million. The lower court also granted the respondent custody of the parties' child, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent child maintenance for two children until they became of age.

The Court concurred with the majority of the lower court's judgment, however, it clarified that the joint debt of IDR 27 million should have been categorised as a counterclaim on the part of the appellant.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the appellant and respondent a divorce, but had also stipulated the parties' joint assets as follows: five parcels of land, one house, one motorcycle, and one tonne of wood for building a house (value: IDR 3.2 million).

The Court disagreed with the decision of the lower court insofar as two of the parcels of land, which had been retracted from the respondent's claim, were still included in the lower court's judgment as joint assets. The Court also found that the lower court need not have included price estimates of the parcels of land as prices can change depending on circumstances and time.

A bin H (deceased) married F binti A (second appellant) in 1974, after his first wife (A binti I) had passed away. The question before the Court was whether or not the property subject of the will was the joint property of the deceased and second appellant, or just that of the deceased. If it had been acquired while the deceased and second appellant were married, art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 85 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, dictated that it was their joint property, which had obvious consequences in terms of how it was distributed among the deceased's beneficiaries.

In overturning the decision of the Calang Shari'a Court (lower court), the Court found that certain portions of some of the parcels of land in dispute were the sole property of the deceased, while others were the joint property of the deceased and second appellant. The deceased's sole property was to be divided between his 10 beneficiaries (two wives and eight children), while the joint property of the second appellant and the deceased was to be divided 50/50 between the second appellant and the deceased. The inheritance of A binti I and M binti A bin H (one of the deceased's daughters, also deceased) was to be distributed among the surviving beneficiaries.

The Tapaktuan Shari'a Court (lower court) found that Siti Aminah (deceased) had left to her husband one-quarter of her estate, to her daughter Rosmalena binti Djamiudin (appellant) one-quarter, and her son Ridwansyah B.Ac bin Djamiudin (respondent) two-quarters. As her husband (Djamiudin) had also already passed away, his one-quarter share was left to his three children as follows: one-fifth to the appellant, two-fifths to the respondent, and two-fifths to the replacement beneficiary and wife (following respondent) of his deceased son Sofyan bin Djamiudin, Anita. Of Sofyan bin Djamiusin's two-fifths, he had bequeathed one-eighth to his wife (following respondent), more than one-half (58.33 per cent) to his son Fadel Muhammad, and more than one-quarter (29.166 per cent) to his daughter Hirah Manda Sofyani.

The Court found that the lower court had erred in stipulating the co-respondent as the replacement beneficiary of her deceased husband Sofyan because her relationship with Sofyan was one through marriage, not blood. The Court also found that a bequest, supposedly made by Siti Aminah on 15 October 1981, was rendered null and void as Siti Aminah had passed away on 29 April 1981. Accordingly, it redistributed the various estates based on these findings.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had dismissed the claim of the appellants in its entirety, and they sought to challenge this decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court.

This fatwa acknowledges that brokerage in the property market is becoming increasingly prevalent, and that shari'a financial institutions have requested a fatwa on the subject. The fatwa permits brokerage, on the following conditions:

1. a brokerage agreement must be free of confusion and irregularities;
2. the authorised duties of the broker must be clear in the brokerage agreement;
3. the term of a brokerage agreement must be clear;
4. brokers must execute certain duties that form the basis of their payment;
5. owners of assets and intermediaries are to have sufficient knowledge of the assets for sale.

The fatwa also sets out conditions for brokers who choose to involve a shari'a financial institution in the brokerage process.

This fatwa acknowledges that previous DSN-MUI fatwas on mortgages had not accommodated the increase in mortgage-based businesses, and that shari'a financial institutions required a fatwa on the subject.

The fatwa states that all forms of financing/disbursement of funds by a shari'a financial institution can be guaranteed by collateral (rahn), but that security guarantees must be items of value, whether stationary or mobile, including state shari'a securities and other shari'a securities. Debts must be binding, quantified, and have a clear term. They may not, however, be increased if a time extension is granted. Shari'a financial institutions may issue a fine to a customer if they breach the agreement or are tardy in executing their contractual obligations.

The parties were married on 12 September 1984 and had two children (born 15 June 1985 and 9 April 1992). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by June 2006 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent had submitted that the cassation applicant:

1. in July 2006, had begun hitting her and demanding a divorce;
2. married another woman without the cassation respondent's permission; and
3. would often leave the home without any reason or warning.

Problems escalated and, on 26 October 2009, the cassation applicant left the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent, in the first instance, requested that the local religious court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), as well as IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

The defendant submitted a counterclaim against the plaintiff for:

1. divorce compensation (iwad) (IDR 2 billion); and
2. permission to divorce the plaintiff before the Court (ikrar talak).

In the first instance, the Sidoarjo Religious Court (2881/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Sda) found in favour of the cassation respondent, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), and ordering the cassation applicant to pay to the cassation respondent IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance, plus IDR 650,000 in court costs. The court dismissed the cassation applicant's counterclaim.

The cassation applicant then lodged an appeal with the Surabaya High Religious Court. The Surabaya High Religious Court upheld the judgment of the lower court, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs.

On 11 December 2013, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Indonesian Supreme Court based on the following grounds:

1. the two lower courts had not considered his counterclaim for divorce compensation (khuluk) in the amount of IDR 2 billion; and
2. the cassation applicant’s counterclaim was for land that he had previously purchased for the cassation respondent.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 20 October 1990 and had two children. The cassation respondent had submitted that during the marriage the parties had accumulated joint assets (harta bersama), comprising:

1. property title no. 1218, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 4.5 billion, also in the cassation applicant’s possession;
2. property title no. 171, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 500 million, also in the cassation applicant’s possession;
3. a pharmacy, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 35 million, also in the cassation applicant’s possession; and
4. one vehicle to the value of IDR 300 million, in the name of the cassation applicant, and in the cassation applicant’s possession. 

These joint assets became the object of dispute between the parties. The cassation respondent had brought a claim in the Semarang Religious Court for his share of the assets. He submitted that the cassation applicant was uncooperative in transferring his lawful share of the assets. The cassation respondent submitted that he had repeatedly tried to claim his share of the assets but that the cassation applicant continually refused to cooperate. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant’s refusal to transfer the listed items, or equal value of the assets, 50-50 between the parties, contravened the principle of the division of matrimonial assets, as contained in the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In the first instance, the Semarang Religious Court (No. 1607/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Smg) on 22 July 2013, found in favour of the cassation respondent, ordering a 50-50 division of the assets in dispute, and ordered both parties to pay court costs (cassation respondent: IDR 1,871,000; cassation applicant: IDR 775,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal with the Semarang High Religious Court (No. 233/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Smg), which amended the decision of the Semarang Religious Court, ruling in favour of the cassation respondent and ordering the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

The cassation applicant lodged a request for cassation on 6 March 2014. The cassation applicant submitted that the Semarang High Religious Court did not follow the regulations and misapplied the law because it did not take into account the obligations of each party to third parties when apportioning the division of the assets. The cassation applicant submitted that:

1. the properties subject to dispute were purchased with her own money;
2. during the construction of the house the cassation respondent had never provided financially for the family, despite having a sizeable income; and
3. the cassation respondent had not provided a financial contribution towards the education of the children.

The cassation applicant also submitted that the cassation respondent had omitted several joint assets from his initial claim:

1. property in the name of the cassation applicant valued at IDR 1.3 billion;
2. a vehicle valued at IDR 80 million;
3. proceeds of the sale of various items to the value of IDR 260 million;
4. another vehicle valued at IDR 80,000,000;
5. debts owed to several banks and persons; and
6. medical and education expenses for the parties' two children.

The Supreme Court did not accept the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal. The cassation applicant was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The plaintiffs stated that Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin (husband and wife) had passed away in 1983 and 1986 respectively, and were survived by their five children and beneficiaries (three sons and two daughters):

1. Sidin bin Amaq Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi), who passed away in 1980, was married to Inaq Kidi, who also passed away in 1985. They were survived by three children:

• Kidi, who passed away in 2008, and was survived by three of her own children (14th, 15th and 16th plaintiffs);
• Mendur bin Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (first plaintiff);
• Sriti binti Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (second defendant);
• Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
• Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
• Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
• Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

1. Cili (alias Inaq Saidi binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 2003, was married to Amaq Saidi, and was survived by seven children, two of whom had passed away (third-seventh plaintiffs);
2. Amaq Rusdi bin Amaq Sidin (first defendant);
3. Amaq Mugasih bin Amaq Sidin (second defendant);
4. Marike (alias Inaq Mundri binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 1982, having married Amaq Mundri in 1980, who had also passed away, was survived by:

• Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
• Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
• Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
• Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin left to their beneficiaries three plantations, two rice padis, and one coil made of pure gold with an estimated worth of IDR 1 billion. The plaintiffs claimed that, following the passing of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the land and gold coil had remained in the possesion of the defendants as the deceaseds' sons, without being distributed among the other worthy beneficiaries. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants had sold several portions of the bequeathed land to the co-defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested that the court distribute the assets of the deceased pursuant to Islamic inheritance law (hukum faraidl), that those portions of the aforementioned land already sold be included as part of the assets of the deceased, that a caveat be placed on that land not yet transferred to any third party, and that the plaintiffs' case be prioritised over any other related proceedings already on foot.

In enforcing the rights of the children of those beneficiaries who had passed away prior to Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the court cited arts 74(1) and 85(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which permits the children of a deceased beneficiary to assume their entitlement. Moreover, the court noted that male children were entitled to twice the share of female children, per art 176 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court stipulated as beneficiaries the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs their share of the assets of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, as it had outlined and quantified, and ordered the defendants to auction parts or all of the properties if such a transfer was not physically feasible. It also ordered the defendants to pay court costs (IDR 2,371,000).

Amaq Soekalam din Daiman passed away circa-1970. His mother and father (Daiman and Sekrasip) had pre-deceased him, and his wife, Rakisah, passed away circa-1975. Amaq Soekalam and Rakisah had five children:

1. Nurisam bin Soekalam (passed away circa-1971);
2. Nuriasip bin Soekalam (first defendant);
3. Nuriadim bin Soekalam (first plaintiff);
4. Sukardip bin Soekalam (second plaintiff);
5. Nuriadip bin Soekalam (passed away circa-2003), married to Inaq Nuriadip, had five children:
6. Sadli bin Nuriadip (third plaintiff);
7. Lux bin Nuriadip (fourth plaintiff);
8. Heli bin Nuriadip (fifth plaintiff);
9. Herul bin Nuriadip (sixth plaintiff);
10. Purni bin Nuriadip (seventh plaintiff).

Amaq Soekalam left behind a plot of land (500m²) upon which was situated a semi-permanent structure (2 x 7m²), as well as a plantation (21,000m²). In 1965, he gave the plantation to Amaq Juni to develop, pursuant to an agreement that they would share the spoils. In 1982, however, a request was made that the plantation be registered by Badan Pertanahan Nasional - Lombok Barat (National Land Body - West Lombok) via the government asset legalisation process PRONA (Proyek Operasi Nasional Agraria - National Agrarian Operations Project), in order that a deed of title for the plantation could be issued. That deed of title was incorrectly issued in Amaq Juni's name, rather than Amaq Soekalam's, leading the plaintiffs to argue that it had no legal effect.

Circa-2006, Amaq Juni passed away and the land came into the possession of his wife (Inaq Uni) and children (second-sixth defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that, while Amaq Soekalam was alive, he both worked on the plantation and maintained possession of it. After he passed away, however, Amaq Juni came into possession of the plantation and had a deed of title issued in his name. After Amaq Juni's passing, the plantation came into the possession of the second-sixth defendants. The plaintiffs sought from the court an order that the plantation be divided between Amaq Soekalam's worthy beneficiaries, and that a caveat be placed on the plantation to preclude the defendants from dealing with the plantation in a manner adverse to the plaintiffs' interests. In addition, they requested that the other property be divided in accordance with Islamic inheritance laws (hukum faraid).

The court acceded to the plaintiffs' request insofar as it ordered the second-sixth defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs the plantation. The court ordered that it be divided between the plaintiffs pursuant to hukum faraid, specifically stipulating the share to which each beneficiary was entitled.

This government regulation regulates the registration of land in Indonesia, the types of land that may be registered, and the different processes involved therein, depending on the status of the land in question.