PRIME NEWS POST 

The INDONESIAN, (Jakarta) — A legal dispute over the status of heirs and ownership of a roughly 5,670‑square‑metre plot of land along Jalan Raya Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng, West Jakarta, has entered an increasingly complex legal phase.

The matter concerns not only who is entitled to the estate of the late Windiya Rachman and the late Siti Asmilah, but also challenges the legal validity of family relationships claimed as the basis for status as biological children and lawful heirs.

The dispute stems from the transfer of land described as part of the family inheritance. According to the plaintiffs, when the sale and purchase took place in 2019, there was no legally binding court determination clearly establishing who was entitled to represent or dispose of the estate.

The land, located in the Taman Pulir area of Duri Kosambi, was sold in 2019 to the Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta through the agency then responsible for parks and forestry. A deed of agreement dated 13 May 2019 — one of the case documents — identifies the land as approximately 5,670 m² at Jalan Raya Duri Kosambi, RT 001/RW 03, Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng, West Jakarta.

The document lists several parties as first and second signatories, alongside obligations for land administration — including obtaining land‑use permits (KRK), registration with the National Land Agency (BPN) West Jakarta, non‑encumbrance certificates, appraisal, and costs related to the transfer.

The core issue, however, lies in the legal standing of those claiming to be family members and heirs of Windiya Rachman.

According to the statement of claim, Windiya Rachman had no biological children from his marriage to Siti Asmilah. Siti Asmilah had children from a previous marriage, and there were also children described as adopted from her subsequent marriage to Windiya Rachman.

The matter grew more complex when some of these children obtained birth certificates listing Windiya Rachman and Siti Asmilah as their parents — administrative status now disputed for its potential legal consequences for inheritance rights. One party, described as an adopted child, is said to have maintained a claim to biological child status throughout legal proceedings. Objectors challenge both the legal and biological foundations of this claim, calling for family relationships to be tested objectively against valid evidence.

DNA Testing Contested

A central point of contention is the issue of DNA testing. Those seeking a formal determination of heirship state that the individuals claiming biological status were asked or encouraged to undergo DNA testing to confirm biological ties — but have reportedly been unwilling or repeatedly declined to do so.

This refusal raises a serious question: if a biological parent‑child relationship truly exists, why decline testing that would provide objective certainty?

It is noted, however, that refusal or absence of DNA evidence does not by itself prove someone is not a biological child. Such assessment remains the court’s prerogative, based on all evidence and applicable law.

Objectors strongly suspect resistance to DNA testing is linked to preserving a claim to biological status — and thereby heirship and rights to valuable inherited property. Given the land’s significant economic value, plaintiffs argue that family claims should not rest solely on administrative documents, but be tested against all available evidence — including, where legally permissible and necessary, biological DNA verification.

Alleged Financial Motive to Be Proven

Plaintiffs also contend that the estate’s high value creates a possibility that financial interests may be driving efforts to maintain a specific status. However, such allegations are not to be treated as proven facts. The court is asked to objectively examine whether the claim to biological status rests on solid legal and factual grounds — or is being asserted to secure inheritance rights to high‑value property.

In short: the core issue is not simply who claims to be a child, but whether that claim can be proven validly and convincingly before the law.

Case Proceeds to Cassation

The matter has moved from the West Jakarta District Court through the appellate level and is now said to be before the Supreme Court in cassation. Objectors allege that recorded family relationships do not accord with actual circumstances and call for civil registry documents — including birth certificates — to be legally examined and tested.

Further, claims have been raised of alleged improper influence or intervention in proceedings, including attempts to have an adopted child legally recognised as a biological child and heir. These allegations of interference or influence remain unproven; if supported by preliminary evidence, they urge, competent authorities should conduct an objective investigation rather than allowing them to remain merely mutual accusations.

Inheritance Claim Filed with Religious Court

Separately, to establish certainty over lawful heirs, an inheritance claim has been filed with the West Jakarta Religious Court. The petition seeks a judicial determination of lawful heirs and their respective shares under Islamic inheritance law. The DKI Jakarta Provincial Government — through the Parks and Forestry Office — is also named as a party, given its acquisition of the land.

Legal action has also been initiated to challenge birth certificates alleged not to reflect true family relationships — a matter of critical importance, as the legal distinctions between biological, step‑, and adopted children carry vastly different inheritance rights.

2019 Transaction Also Under Review

Plaintiffs request a full investigation into the 2019 land transfer, including who acted as seller, the land’s legal status at the time, documentation used, and how administrative and payment processes were conducted. They note that the agreement of 13 May 2019 listed obligations to complete land administration and appraisal — and since the land is now public property, the legal standing of the sellers and the validity of heir determinations are matters of public interest.

Call for Transparent, Unimpeded Process

Plaintiffs urge a full examination of the entire sequence — from the issuance of family documents and birth certificates, through the status of biological and adopted children, the 2019 sale, land administration, and the ongoing cassation. They also call on law enforcement and judicial oversight bodies to investigate any reports or evidence of legal violations or attempts to influence court proceedings.

The central question is not who currently occupies the land, but who lawfully held heirship rights when the 2019 transaction took place. Clarifying the legal status of biological, step‑, and adopted children — and the validity of documents supporting those claims — is essential to a final and binding ruling.

If errors in status determination have occurred, the consequences extend beyond family conflict — they affect the legal certainty of a high‑value asset now held by the DKI Jakarta Provincial Government.

Objectors affirm their struggle is not intended to obstruct government interests or development, but to ensure that all transfers of inherited property are based on correct legal subjects, valid documentation, transparent procedures, and lawful heir determinations.

They urge judges at every level to consider the case comprehensively on the evidence submitted — including the contested status of family relationships and the refusal of DNA testing. Ultimately, what is at stake is not merely 5,670 m² in Duri Kosambi, but certainty over who is truly entitled to the inheritance — and whether the process that brought the land into public hands was built on a sound legal foundation.