Sarwendah and Ruben Onsu Face Mediation Over House Payments Near Rp300 Million a Month

Two properties and three credit agreements at the center of the dispute

Sarwendah and her former husband, Ruben Samuel Onsu, are heading toward mediation over responsibility for monthly loan payments of more than Rp270 million, approaching Rp300 million, tied to two properties pledged to Bank Central Asia (BCA). The first hearing took place at the South Jakarta District Court on October 13, 2026, with neither Sarwendah nor Ruben attending personally.

The civil lawsuit, registered on September 28 under case number 1198/Pdt.G/2026/PN JKT.SEL, concerns the implementation of Notarial Deed No. 39, an agreement associated with their divorce. Sarwendah alleges that obligations under the agreement have not been fulfilled. Ruben's legal team rejects the allegation and argues that the payments are a shared responsibility.

The properties are identified as houses in BDN and Rempoa. Sarwendah's lawyer, Jaenudin, said the monthly payments arise from three credit agreements. He also cited a figure of approximately Rp12 billion, although reports differ on whether that represents the value of the assets, remaining debt or total credit obligations.

The first hearing dealt with the parties' documents and the authority of their legal representatives, rather than a ruling on who must pay. Both sides agreed to use a mediator who is not a judge, and mediation was reported as scheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2026.

The immediate dispute is therefore narrower than a fresh division of the former couple's property. It asks how an existing agreement allocates responsibility for loans that remain attached to two houses. That distinction matters because deciding who received an asset and deciding who must keep paying its associated debt are different questions.

What Sarwendah is asking the court to decide

Jaenudin describes the action as a claim for wanprestasi, an Indonesian legal term referring to failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. In this case, Sarwendah is seeking enforcement of commitments that her legal team says were recorded in Notarial Deed No. 39.

Her position is that Ruben bears responsibility for the BCA installments. Speaking on October 7, Jaenudin said the deed contained an obligation for Ruben to make those payments. At the October 13 hearing, he described the lawsuit as a way to test the competing interpretations of whether payment belongs to Ruben alone or to both former spouses.

Jaenudin, Sarwendah's lawyer, explained that the claim seeks fulfillment of the agreement rather than a new contest over ownership of their shared property:

Gugatan wanprestasi itu berkaitan dengan menagih prestasi seseorang, menagih agar Akta 39 itu berjalan kembali gitu loh, seperti sebelumnya.

His explanation was that the lawsuit seeks to make Deed No. 39 operate again as it did before. He has said Sarwendah will follow the court's decision, including if the judges conclude that payment must be shared.

The relevant clauses of the deed have not been reproduced in full in the reporting on the case. Without that wording, the competing interpretations cannot be resolved simply from the lawyers' public statements. No decision determining liability was reported from the opening hearing.

Ruben denies breaching the agreement

Ruben's lawyer, Minola Sebayang, maintains that the agreement makes the installments the responsibility of both parties until the loans are paid off. His position directly challenges Sarwendah's claim that the payment obligation rests with Ruben.

After the October 13 hearing, Minola said Ruben had left the handling of the proceedings to his legal team and had not sent a special message for the hearing. He also rejected the allegation of a contractual breach.

Minola Sebayang, representing Ruben, stated his team's position on responsibility for the payments:

Kami tetap berpendapat itu adalah kewajiban para pihak.

That statement means his team continues to regard payment as an obligation of the parties, rather than Ruben alone. Jaenudin has said Sarwendah respects the opposing side's right to present that defense, even though her interpretation differs.

The dispute is consequently about both the meaning of the agreement and whether the conduct of either party failed to meet it. The amount of the monthly bill establishes the financial scale, but it does not itself establish who is legally responsible.

What the Rp12 billion figure does and does not establish

Jaenudin put the monthly installments at more than Rp270 million, close to Rp300 million, across three credit agreements. Those figures are estimates rather than a published breakdown of each loan. The reporting does not explain how the three agreements are distributed between the two properties.

At the stated range, 12 months of payments would amount to approximately Rp3.24 billion to Rp3.6 billion. That calculation shows the annual scale of the payment burden. It is not a statement of overdue debt or the amount Sarwendah is seeking through the lawsuit.

The separate Rp12 billion figure needs greater caution. Some reports describe it as the value of the assets, while others call it remaining debt or total credit obligations. Jaenudin's quoted description refers broadly to the total at the last check and does not settle those different labels.

These categories are not interchangeable. A property's value is what the asset is worth; an outstanding loan balance is what remains owed; and monthly installments may include interest as well as repayment of borrowed money. The Rp12 billion figure should therefore not be presented as a confirmed property valuation and a confirmed debt balance at the same time.

No detailed loan statement, interest rate, repayment schedule or confirmed arrears total has been disclosed in the reporting. The figures establish that substantial credit commitments are being disputed, but not precisely how much remains unpaid or when each agreement is due to end.

The auction warning behind the urgency

The prospect of losing a pledged property gives the disagreement a practical urgency beyond interpreting the deed. Sarwendah's legal team has said the houses could face auction if the loans are not paid.

On August 6, 2026, Abraham Simon, another lawyer representing Sarwendah, displayed what he identified as a third warning letter from the bank, dated October 1, 2025. He said the letter had been addressed to Sarwendah and Ruben and received at the BDN house.

According to Simon's presentation, the warning said the bank could exercise its legal rights, including auctioning collateral, if the debt was not settled within the specified period. A house pledged as collateral serves as security for a loan, meaning payment failure can expose it to enforcement by the lender.

The letter was presented by Sarwendah's lawyers, not through a public statement from BCA. Its reported contents support their account that an auction warning existed, but do not establish that an auction has occurred or that a sale date has been fixed.

Jaenudin said on October 7 that the BDN and Rempoa houses had been allocated to Sarwendah and were at risk if installments went unpaid. That remains his account of the asset arrangement and its consequences. The court has not been reported as making a finding on those claims.

Reports differ on the payment history. In his October 7 remarks, Jaenudin said payments had stopped around the end of 2023, qualifying the date with uncertainty. In remarks on October 13, he said payments had been underway since 2024. The accounts do not explain whether these statements concern different periods, interrupted payments or a mistaken date. They should not be combined into a single confirmed chronology.

Why the first hearing was procedural

Sarwendah did not attend the opening hearing because Jaenudin advised her that her presence was not yet needed. He said the judges first had to check the completeness of the parties' documents and the legal authority of the lawyers appearing for them.

In this setting, checking legal standing included confirming that counsel had valid authority to represent their clients. Jaenudin specifically explained that he needed to show documentation establishing that he was Sarwendah's lawyer. Minola likewise described the agenda as examining representation documents, the claim and arrangements for mediation.

Ruben also did not attend personally, and both former spouses were represented by their legal teams. Their absence from this procedural hearing does not establish either acceptance or rejection of the claim.

The lawsuit names Ruben Samuel Onsu as defendant and a bank as an additional party, described in Indonesian procedure as a turut tergugat. Later accounts identify that bank as BCA. Jaenudin said he understood that BCA had attended the first hearing, though no public response from the bank on the substance of the dispute was reported.

Mediation is scheduled for October 20

Both legal teams agreed to use a mediator from outside the judiciary. Minola said the parties left the selection to the panel of judges after considering a lengthy list of possible mediators, and the court appointed a mediator who was not a judge.

The lawyers cited scheduling flexibility as the reason for that choice. Jaenudin said an outside mediator could help the process move more quickly, while Minola said a judge's existing hearing schedule might make arranging meetings more difficult.

Mediation is an attempt to reach an agreement rather than have the dispute decided through a contested judgment. The reported date is October 20, 2026, one week after the first hearing. No mediator's name or proposed settlement terms have been disclosed.

Minola said he hoped Ruben and Sarwendah would attend directly because they, rather than their lawyers, are the people whose disagreement needs to be addressed. Jaenudin initially suggested Sarwendah might attend, but later said attendance would still be discussed in light of the situation and arrangements for both parties.

The key dates trace how the financial dispute reached this stage:

• October 1, 2025: Date on the third bank warning letter later displayed by Sarwendah's lawyers concerning the BDN property.
• August 6, 2026: Abraham Simon presented the warning letter at the South Jakarta District Court.
• September 28, 2026: Sarwendah registered lawsuit 1198/Pdt.G/2026/PN JKT.SEL.
• September 30, 2026: Minola said Ruben's side respected the legal action and was awaiting formal notification.
• October 7, 2026: Jaenudin publicly explained the disagreement over the deed's payment provisions.
• October 13, 2026: The first hearing examined procedural requirements and arranged mediation.
• October 20, 2026: Mediation was reported as scheduled.

The financial claim is separate from the wider family conflict

The dispute has developed alongside disagreements over parenting arrangements, financial support and a custody lawsuit. Jaenudin says Ruben's custody action also relies on Deed No. 39, particularly provisions concerning meetings with the children.

That shared reference does not make all those issues part of this financial case. Jaenudin has repeatedly limited this lawsuit to the credit obligations connected with the BDN and Rempoa properties, rather than a new division of all houses, vehicles and other assets.

Some reports broadly state that houses and cars are excluded, while also identifying the two pledged houses as the subject of the claim. The more precise distinction in Jaenudin's explanation is between enforcing obligations attached to those properties and reopening the division of the former couple's entire property holdings.

Separate allegations about debt collection also sit outside that narrow scope. In August, Sarwendah's legal team said collection messages continued into April and May 2026 and contributed to her decision to move to protect the children's mental wellbeing. Lawyer Mark Adrianus Ambarita said she did not believe she had ever owned a Mini Cooper mentioned in payment demands. Those are claims from her representatives, not findings establishing responsibility for that vehicle debt.

The unresolved issues remain concrete: what the deed requires, how the loans have actually been paid, the precise remaining balances and whether mediation can produce an agreement. The next scheduled step is a settlement discussion, not a reported auction or a judgment assigning the full payment obligation to either party.

Key Points

• Sarwendah's lawsuit concerns payment obligations under Notarial Deed No. 39 for two houses in BDN and Rempoa pledged to BCA.
• Jaenudin estimates monthly installments at more than Rp270 million, approaching Rp300 million, across three credit agreements.
• Reports describe the approximately Rp12 billion total differently, so its precise meaning is unresolved.
• Sarwendah's side says Ruben must pay; Ruben's legal team denies a breach and says payment is a shared obligation.
• A bank warning dated October 1, 2025, was displayed by Sarwendah's lawyers, but no confirmed auction date has been reported.
• Neither former spouse attended the October 13 opening hearing personally. No ruling on payment responsibility was reported.
• Mediation with a mediator who is not a judge was scheduled for October 20, 2026. Personal attendance remained under discussion.