This study used a qualitative method, particularly a descriptive qualitative design with a case study format. The study location is the Gamping Sub-district, Sleman District, Yogyakarta. The study aims to : (1) analyze the reason of choosing the profit sharing scheme in managing the paddy fields in Gamping Sub-district. (2) To analyze the implementation of profit sharing agreement for paddy field in Gamping Sub-district using Law No. 2 of 1960 and Islamic law. (3) To analyze the obstacles of the implementation of Law No. 2 of 1960 and Islamic law in Gamping Sub-district. Data used in this study were primary data and secondary data. The primary data were obtained from interview, observation, and documentation. The secondary data were obtained from documentation. The collected data were tested their validity using data source triangulation. Then, the data were analyzed using Miles and Huberman model, the data were reduced, presented, and verified for drawing conclusion and answering the problem formulation in this study. The conclusion of this study are: (1) The reason of paddy field owners in Gamping Sub-district to choose profit sharing scheme compared to rental scheme or paying farm workers in managing their fields because they want to enjoy the yields gradually and do not want to be involved directly in managing the paddy field. The reasons from sharecroppers is because of the willingness of paddy field owners. (2) The agreement of profit sharing in Gamping Sub-district in general is conducted orally, based on trust, without any witnesses, unrecorded to the Head of Village and not authorized by the Head of Sub-district. The term is not defined clearly. The profit sharing balance is set since the first time of agreement. The balance of profit sharing used in general is "maro" (½ part for sharecroppers and ½ part for owner) with all the production costs borne by the sharecroppers, and the yields are immediately halved. In the event of crop failure, it becomes the risk borne by the sharecroppers. The paddy land tax is paid by the owner. The crop yields reaching specific nisab or limit in general are not directly paid for the zakat. (3) The implementation of profit sharing agreement for paddy fields in Gamping Sub-district is not fully in accordance with the Law No. 2 of 1960 and the Islamic law. (4) The obstacles to implement the Law No. 2 of 1960 and the Islamic Law in Gamping Sub-district are because there is no socialization from any parties related to Law No. 2 of 1960 and the Islamic Law in agricultural cooperation, here is hereditary habit, the owners and sharecroppers do not want to use the red tape and complicated procedure, the owners have been good enough and fair with the common system used, and the sharecroppers accept the habit in force although they feel that it is hard and unfair. (5) The bargaining position between the owner and sharecroppers at Gamping Sub-district is devided into three phases: in the past, the number of sharecroppers was more than the number of owner; currently, the number of sharecroppers is declining; and in the future, the sharecroppers  will be lesser than the number of owner so these will increase  the bargaining position of the sharecroppers (it is the answer to implement Law No.2 of 1960 and Islamic Law). 
Keywords: profit sharing agreement of crop, sharecroppers, profit sharing agreement for paddy field, Islamic law on agricultural cooperation.