This study aims to examine and analyze the philosophy of mortgages as an object of mortgage guarantee, as well as to analyze inconsistencies of execution object execution in mortgage loan agreement. The method of approach in this research was empirical juridical. The data used were secondary data, sourced from primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Analyze the data analytically. The results of the study found that: The philosophy of the dependent right as the object of credit guarantee, ie before the existence of the Insurance Rights Act (UUHT) which has been mandated in the provisions of Article 51 of Basic Agrarian Law, then still use Hypotheek regulation, which is regulated in Book II title 21 Civil Code Article 1162 to Article 1232 and Creditveerband, set forth in Stb.1908 No.542 as amended by Stb.1937 No.190 as collateral for debt or credit Guarantees granted in Mortgage Rights, namely the preference to precede other creditors to the creditor Holders of Insurers’ Rights. The inconsistency of the parate charge of execution in the provisions of Article 6 with Article 11 Paragraph (2) letter (e), Article 6 with Article 14 Paragraphs (2) and (3), and General Explanation Number 9 of Law Number 4 of 1996 Concerning Mortgage Rights. This inconsistency can be seen from the mixed content of the execution parate substance according to the doctrine by execution based on the executorial title (grosse deed). As well as Circular Letter of Supreme Court Number 7 of 2012. The execution shall still be based on the determination of the Chairman of the local District Court (court fiat).

Keywords: Inconsistency, Parate Execution, Mortgage Rights, Credit.