[ABSTRAK
Tesis ini membahas mengenai Perlindungan hukum bagi bank selaku krediturpemegang Hak Tanggungan dalam Kredit Pemilikan Rumah dengan kasus yangterjadi pada Bank X, dimana jaminan kredit yang ada pada Bank X digugat olehpihak ketiga yang mengaku sebagai pemilik sah dari jaminan tersebut. KedudukanBank X selaku kreditur preference pemegang Hak Tanggungan dan prosespemberian kredit yang dilakukan pun dipertanyakan. Penelitian ini menggunakanmetode penelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan pendekatankualitatif untuk menghasilkan data deskriptif analitis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitiandapat disimpulkan bahwa proses KPR yang dilakukan oleh Bank X sudah sesuaidengan ketentuan perkreditan yang ada dengan menerapkan prisnip prudentialbanking dengan baik. Dengan demikian dapat dikatakan Bank X merupakankreditur yang beritikad baik, sehingga kepentingannya harus dilindungi olehhukum. Dalam Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung Repubik Indonesia No.394/K/Pdt/1984 tanggal 31 Mei 1985 sudah mengatur perlindungan hukumterhadap bank selaku kreditur yang beritikad baik. Namun dalam kasus ini hukumtersebut dikesampingkan, dan kedudukan bank selaku kreditur preference menjaditidak mutlak.

---

ABSTRACT
This thesis discusses the legal protection for the bank as creditor Mortgageholders in Housing Credit From Bank X Cases, where the credit guaranteesavailable From the Bank X sued by a third party claiming to be legitimate ownerof the collateral. The Bank X Status as the holder of preference Mortgage lendersshaken and processes performed lending has also been questioned. This studycase uses the literature resources with juridical normative approach to generatequalitative analytical descriptive data. Based on the results of this studyconcluded that the mortgage process is carried out by the Bank X is in conformitywith the provisions of the existing credit by applying prudential bankingprinciples as well. Therefore, it can be said that Bank X as a good faith creditor,so its interest should be protected by law. In the Indonesia Supreme Court'sJurisprudence No. 394/K/Pdt/1984 on May 31, 1985 has been set as the legalprotection of creditor banks were acting in good faith. But in this case the law beexcluded, and the position of the bank as creditor preference not becomesabsolute;This thesis discusses the legal protection for the bank as creditor Mortgageholders in Housing Credit From Bank X Cases, where the credit guaranteesavailable From the Bank X sued by a third party claiming to be legitimate ownerof the collateral. The Bank X Status as the holder of preference Mortgage lendersshaken and processes performed lending has also been questioned. This studycase uses the literature resources with juridical normative approach to generatequalitative analytical descriptive data. Based on the results of this studyconcluded that the mortgage process is carried out by the Bank X is in conformitywith the provisions of the existing credit by applying prudential bankingprinciples as well. Therefore, it can be said that Bank X as a good faith creditor,so its interest should be protected by law. In the Indonesia Supreme Court'sJurisprudence No. 394/K/Pdt/1984 on May 31, 1985 has been set as the legalprotection of creditor banks were acting in good faith. But in this case the law beexcluded, and the position of the bank as creditor preference not becomesabsolute, This thesis discusses the legal protection for the bank as creditor Mortgageholders in Housing Credit From Bank X Cases, where the credit guaranteesavailable From the Bank X sued by a third party claiming to be legitimate ownerof the collateral. The Bank X Status as the holder of preference Mortgage lendersshaken and processes performed lending has also been questioned. This studycase uses the literature resources with juridical normative approach to generatequalitative analytical descriptive data. Based on the results of this studyconcluded that the mortgage process is carried out by the Bank X is in conformitywith the provisions of the existing credit by applying prudential bankingprinciples as well. Therefore, it can be said that Bank X as a good faith creditor,so its interest should be protected by law. In the Indonesia Supreme Court'sJurisprudence No. 394/K/Pdt/1984 on May 31, 1985 has been set as the legalprotection of creditor banks were acting in good faith. But in this case the law beexcluded, and the position of the bank as creditor preference not becomesabsolute]