L Law number 4 of 1996 concerning mortgage rights over land and objects related to land (mortgage law) grants creditors the authority to execute mortgage rights when a debtor is in default. the issues examined in this study are whether the execution of mortgage rights by the creditor is consistent with the mortgage law (case study of decision no. 22/pdt.g/2023/pn sdr) and whether the judges’ legal reasoning is consistent with the mortgage law (case studies of decision no. 22/pdt.g/2023/pn sdr, decision no. 45/pdt/2024/pt mks, and decision no. 4280 k/pdt/2024). to address these issues, this study employs a normative juridical research method with a descriptive-analytical research approach, using secondary data as the primary source of data, and drawing conclusions through deductive reasoning. the results of the study indicate that the execution of mortgage rights carried out by the creditor in decision no. 22/pdt.g/2023/pn sdr through parate execution pursuant to article 6 of the mortgage law, under which the creditor is entitled to sell the object of the mortgage right on its own authority through a public auction without requiring the debtor’s consent or a court order, is consistent with the mortgage law. this is based on the fact that the debtor had been proven to be in default and that the creditor had previously issued a formal notice of default (somasi) to the debtor before submitting the auction application. in addition, the deed of granting mortgage rights (akta pemberian hak tanggungan—apht), which had been signed by the parties before the land deed official (pejabat pembuat akta tanah—ppat), legally binds the debtor to all legal consequences arising from the encumbrance of the mortgage right. the judges’ legal reasoning at all three levels of the judiciary likewise did not refer to the mortgage law as the legal basis in their considerations because the execution of the mortgage right referred to article 6 in conjunction with article 11 paragraph (2) of the mortgage law as stipulated in the apht as the contractual basis, demonstrating that the debtor had acknowledged and agreed to the consequences of the execution upon signing the apht. it can therefore be concluded that the execution of the mortgage right carried out by the creditor is consistent with the mortgage law, whereas the judges’ legal reasoning is not entirely consistent with the mortgage law because it does not use the mortgage law as its legal basis.