SHARIAsource

This government regulation dictates that land registration is coordinated and implemented at the village (desa) level. It regulates the registration of land, as well as the registration of rights contained therein, including: land rights/entitlements; the transfer, abolition and registration of obligations pursuant to land ownership; the issuing of deeds of title; and costs associated with registration of land.

For the purpose of land reform, this government regulation regulates, among other things:

1. the distribution of land;
2. the provision of damages to former owners of land;
3. the provision of land rights and conditions;
4. the stipulation of land prices for new property owners;
5. land reform funding; and
6. agricultural cooperatives.

The appellants successfully challenged Giri Menang Religious Court Decision No. 220 of 2013. The court found that, pursuant to art 1795 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), among other provisions, the respondents' legal representation in the original case was not authorised to act on behalf of the respondents. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the initial proceeding (IDR 1,706,000) originally paid by the appellants, as well as costs for this case (IDR 150,000).

This fatwa acknowledges that in order to obtain benefit from an object, often an ijarah (rental) agreement is necessary. The fatwa mandates that consent and accedence are required from both parties to the agreement, either verbally or in another form. The benefit of the object or service must be given a financial value and be practical to implement. The fatwa also sets out the obligations of shari'a financial institutions and customers as parties to such an agreement.

Book I of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers what constitutes a legal subject before the religious courts in shari'a economy-related disputes, as well as property deriving from trusts (amwal).

Book III of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers the provision of alms (zakat), as well as the making of gift (hibah).

This statute regulates the mortgaging of land and other objects used as credit securities.

H had passed away in October 1993, and the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated as his beneficiaries his wife and children. The lower court had also stipulated H's estate and the portions to which each beneficiary was entitled. M bin N (son and appellant) had been ordered by the lower court to transfer to the beneficiaries their share of what was under his control.

The appellant's appeal, however, was dismissed. The Court sided with A bin H (son and respondent representing the other beneficiaries), finding that the decision of the lower court was sound and accurate.

Aminsyah passed away in 1993. He was survived by his two wives, Hahine binti H. Mundut (first wife and co-respondent), Satumi/Tumi (second wife and first respondent), as well as Ahmad Sopian bin Aminsyah (son/fifth respondent), Adinah binti Aminsyah (daughter/second respondent), Satinah binti Aminsyah (daughter/third respondent), Samsidar binti Aminsyah (daughter/fourth respondent), and Hanime binti Aminsyah (daughter/appellant).

The Kutacane Shari'a Court (lower court) enforced the distribution of the deceased's estate between the beneficiaries, as had already been carried out deliberatively in 1993 in the village of Pancar Iman.

The Court concurred with the lower court's decision regarding the manner in which the estate was distributed. In terms of the appellant's initial claim, however, the considerations of the lower court often conflicted with one another. Accordingly, the Court chose to provide its own judgment.

It found that of the four parcels of land devised by the deceased, two were under the control of the appellant, and two were under the control of the respondents. This had been conducted correctly pursuant to a familial arrangement, and was affirmed by information provided to the Court by witnesses.

On appeal, the Court upheld the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court). The lower court had ruled as lawful a certificate of exchange, pursuant to which land the subject of a trust (wakaf) owned by a madrasah in Meunasah Tunong, was to be exchanged with land owned by Drs. Muhammad Muin (deceased), in Meunasah Teungoh, upon which a new school building was to be built.

The land and structure subject of the dispute belonged to the deceased, and had been devised lawfully to the respondents.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated as joint assets of the parties one property, half a rice field, a Toyota vehicle, and some household appliances. The lower court had ordered that the assets be split on a 50/50 basis between the parties.

The appellant appealed the decision unsuccessfully on several grounds, namely that the intervention procedures implemented throughout the process were unlawful. The Court, however, found the procedures applied were correct and in accordance with the law.

The appellant also claimed that the respondent's initial claim incorrectly identified the street on which the property was located. The Court found this irrelevant, noting that when an inspection of the site was conducted, the appellant had conceded in a court report (dated: 19 February 2010, proceeding 27, page 2) that it was the correct property, despite the street name having changed.

The Court found the appellant's final objection to be similarly unfounded. The appellant had claimed he would purchase from the respondent her share of half of the rice field with IDR 2 million, which he would be able to obtain from his mother. The appellant had, however, been unable to prove to the lower court that he indeed had access to this money. The Court concurred with the lower court that the appellant's inability to prove such access meant the rice field became a joint asset.

Amiruddin bin Mahmud had perished in the tsunami of 26 December 2004 in the village of Paya Tieng. He was survived by his four beneficiaries, Arba'iyah binti Amiruddin (daughter and first appellant), Husniati binti Amiruddin (daughter second appellant), Nurhayati binti Mahmud (sister and first respondent), and Jauhari binti Mahmud (sister and second respondent). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated that to his beneficiaries the deceased had devised two properties and four parcels of land, with the appellants each receiving a two-sixths share, and the respondents one-sixth each.

The appellants, in their response and appeal, noted that the deceased's wife, Mardhiah, had also perished in the 2004 tsunami, and that she had been survived by beneficiaries such as her sister and niece. The respondents, however, had failed to include those beneficiaries in their initial claim, rendering their application null and void. Moreover, they had failed to specify whether or not the objects of their claim were the personal assets of the deceased, or the joint assets of the deceased and his wife. Pursuant to Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 621/K/Sip/1975, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court, finding the respondents' initial claim to be null and void.

Syarifah binti Abdurrahman perished in the tsunami of 26 December 2004. The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated as the deceased's beneficiaries: Nurhayati binti Abdurrahman (sister and first appellant); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (sister, deceased); Jumiati binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-first appellant); M. Amin bin Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-second appellant); Maisarah binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-third appellant); Hazmin bin Abdan (nephew and first respondent); and M. Ali bin Abdan (nephew and second respondent).

The lower court stipulated as the deceased's estate three shops and three parcels of land, and divided the estate among the parties as follows: the first appellant (one-quarter); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (one-quarter, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (one-quarter); and the first and second respondents (one-quarter).

The appellants appealed the decision on the grounds that the respondents' initial claim lacked clarity. The Court, however, found that it was sufficiently clear both in terms of identifying the then-defendants (now appellants), as well as the property subject of their claim as the deceased's estate.

The Court found fault with the way in which the lower court had distributed the estate among the beneficiaries. It noted that two or more sisters were only entitled to a two-thirds share, in accordance with surat An-Nisa, verse 176 from the Qur'an. As one of the deceased's siblings (Ansari binti Ibrahim) had passed away before her, art 185 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws dictated that Ansari's inheritance claims devolved to her heirs. Accordingly, Nurjannah binti Ibrahim's share became that of her heirs as well, as she had passed away in 2007 after the deceased.

In accordance with the Qur'an and art 182 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sisters that pass away are only entitled to a two-thirds share, and are not entitled unless there are no ashabah beneficiaries (beneficiaries from the father's side, not specifically bequeathed any part of the deceased's estate), per art 193 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Based on the hierarchy of ashabah beneficiaries, the Court found that the respondents as nephews of the deceased were indeed ashabah beneficiaries in this instance, as no closer male relative existed.

Accordingly, the Court distributed the deceased's estate as follows: the first appellant (two-ninths); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (two-ninths, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (two-ninths); and the first and second respondents (three-ninths).

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce and custody of the parties' two children, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties two properties (one in Aceh, one in North Sumatra), a parcel of land, three vehicles, some household appliances, a debt of IDR 33,333,344 in the name of Yulia Fitri owed to Bank BPD, as well as a debt of IDR 36,979,175 owed to Bank BPD in the name of the appellant. The appellant was also ordered to return to the respondent that part of her dowry (mahar) that he had already used in the form of 16 grams of gold.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's decision and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

Nizar Bin Syaf'i passed away due to illness on 17 September 2013. He was survived by his wife (second applicant), mother (first applicant), and siblings (third-seventh applicants), all of whom were beneficiaries under his will.

The applicants successfully sought a stipulation from the court that the deceased, Nizar Bin Syafi'i, had indeed passed away, that the applicants were legitimate beneficiaries under the deceased's will, and that the fourth applicant had power of attorney to transfer the deed of title to the land of the deceased to the National Land Body (Badan Pertanahan Nasional) of Lhokseumawe. The court ordered the applicants to pay court costs (IDR 141,000).

This Supreme Court pronouncement states that while a non-Muslim wife who survives her Muslim husband cannot be considered a beneficiary (ahli waris), she remains entitled to inherit her portion of his estate as his wife, pursuant to a wasiat wajibah (obligatory will).

In this case, the cassation applicant had challenged the decision of the Makassar High Religious Court (59/Pdt.G/2009/PTA). As the lawful wife of the deceased, who had passed away on 22 May 2008 (they were married on 1 November 1990), the Court stated that as the deceased and cassation applicant had been married for 18 years, and as the defendant had devoted herself to the deceased while he was alive, it was immaterial that she was a non-Muslim. Moreover, that she was entitled to receive a portion of the estate of the deceased, as well as a portion of their joint assets as husband and wife.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Makassar Religious Court (lower court), which had granted her one-half of the assets she had owned jointly with the deceased. The appellant had married the deceased on 1 November 1990, and they had remained married until the deceased passed away on 22 May 2008. The lower court had stipulated as the deceased's beneficiaries his mother and four siblings (the respondents), and two properties and IDR 50 million in life insurance as the joint assets of the appellant and deceased.

The lower court had ordered the appellant to transfer to the beneficiaries the other half of those joint assets, which constituted the estate of the deceased. In dismissing the appeal, the court cited arts 96 and 97 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws as a legal basis for the division of the assets, as well as the fact that, as the deceased was Muslim, his assets were to be distributed pursuant to Islamic law, despite one of the parties to the dispute being a Christian/non-Muslim. The appellant was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 86,000).

This Supreme Court pronouncement states that the wife is to receive three-quarters of joint assets, because those joint assets were yielded by the wife, and the husband failed to provide financial support to his wife and child for 11 years.

The parties were married on 8 April 1995 and had two children. Since 1998, the parties had quarrelled. On 9 November 2008, the plaintiff, the parties' daughter, and their maid left the matrimonial home, after being driven out by the defendant. The parties had remained separated since.

In seeking a divorce, the plaintiff also sought from the defendant IDR 2 million per month in back-dated child maintenance, as the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support since 1997 (132 months). Furthermore, the plaintiff sought custody of the parties' children, and IDR 5.5 million per month in child support going forward.

The defendant unsuccessfully challenged the Yogyakarta High Religious Court's decision (34/Pdt.G/2009/PTA), the Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, reaffirming the Yogyakarta Court's decision. The Yogyakarta Court, however, had not acceded to the amounts in financial support sought by the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until that child reached 21 years of age.

The four applicants filed an application with the court on 26 June 2015, stating that their father (the deceased) had passed away on 6 May 1994, and that their mother had passed away on 23 November 2014. The applicants' grandparents had also all passed away. The applicants requested from the court a stipulation that they were the beneficiaries (ahli waris) of the deceased, in order that they could withdraw from Bank Syariah Mandiri the deceased's hajj savings, and deal with a deed of title filed with the National Land Body (Badan Pertanahan Nasional) in the name of the deceased.

The court acceded to the applicants' request based on the grounds that they met the requirements to be considered beneficiaries, per art 171(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The appellant sought to challenge Decision: 0348/Pdt.G/2014/PA.Pkl. of the Pekalongan Religious Court (lower court), which had dismissed his claim. The court, however, upheld the decision of the lower court, finding inconsistencies in the appellant's initial submission. Moreover, it concurred with the lower court that the respondents were entitled to auction the appellant's leveraged properties after the appellant had defaulted on scheduled repayments payable pursuant to a murabahah credit facility granted to it by the first respondent.