SILVA, J. M.; SILVA, José Maria da.
Abstract:
This essay has title with: "objection of pre-executivement and the new law
discipline 11.332/2005", using to the research the deductive method and
bibliographic investigation putting into effect a collect of important knowings to the
essay itself. It has the aim, not endeavoring to finish the issue, show in a general
form one kind of debtor's defense into the civil execution process that is the
objection of pre-executivement expressing, under unspecified situations, its legal
nature, opportunity, form, procedure and its use not as a defense to substitute the
hindrance into the execution, but a legal document of defense the debtor has the
opportunity to use when he is in front of imperfections in the institution of executive
action, like the example of nullity and public issues, that can be handle without
judgment safe, because the inequality situation that he appears to the executor.
This way, the state reserves itself the monopoly of jurisdictional guardianship, that
works in the process, this one has in its subdivision the executive custody where
the state, working with materials acts, makes the property responsibility. So, tring
to turn the executive process more effective the legislative power and the
executive published and promulgated the law 11.232/2005 that put two chapters
into the title VIII, book I of CPC, giving support for present reform in execution
process of judicial title saving the same subjects in CPC for extra-judicials title
execution and for some kinds of especial execution, like that one against the
national patrimony keeper. This way, it is important to say about the debtor's
defense at the law 11.232/05 sight putting on spot the new disposition for judicial
title execution that change the execution action for the level of sentence
agreement turning process "double phase" getting over with hindrance execution
but the incident of receptation to the sentence agreement that, showed in the
essay body, make similarity with the objection procedure, because this one does
not get over the execution and appears like a procedural incident, showing that
even with the reform the objection of pre-executivement still possible and in
evidence, because doesn't need judgment safe oppositing of sentence agreement
receptation that still needs previous judgment safe by attachment to its use