Sílvio de Souza Lôbo Júnior
Introduction
This work seeks to illuminate the propter rem obligation, relating doctrine, especially Maria Helena Diniz, Sílvio Rodrigues, and Sílvio Venosa, in addition to selecting three court decisions, two from the state of São Paulo, Court of Justice, 34th Chamber of Private Law, and one from the Court of Justice - Section of Private Law of the 26th Chamber of Santa Catarina, doctrinal aspects, and current Brazilian legislation and jurisprudence.
The first purpose is definitions. To understand the term, and develop a concept that will help in finding such an obligation in the Civil Code and its application in real cases, in actual situations, amidst daily life and conflicts.
Secondly, to attribute such a concept to the real fact, its relationship with Real Law, thus the propter rem obligation as an aspect of the real obligation, and its relationship between the owner and the property, its real link to the thing.
Finally, jurisprudence demonstrating the position of some courts with their decisions on this topic.
1. Doctrinal Definitions,
The propter rem obligations, according to Orlando Gomes, "arise from the debtor's real right over a certain thing"[1]. Arnoldo Wald states that obligations "derive from someone's link to certain assets, over which duties arise from the need to maintain the thing"[2]. Meanwhile, Maria Helena Diniz states that it is a "link to a real right, that is, to a certain thing of which the debtor is the owner or possessor"[3].
Among other doctrinal scholars, in simple terms, Sílvio Rodrigues describes propter rem by saying that, "it binds the holder of a real right, whoever they may be, by virtue of their status as owner or possessor[4]". Sílvio Venosa explains it by stating that "it is an obligatory relationship characterized by its link to the thing"[5].
Illuminated by these scholars, it is possible to define propter rem obligations as obligations that follow the real object (thing), such as condominium fees for a property or property tax (IPTU).
Another definition is that an obligation "is a temporary pecuniary legal relationship, uniting two (or more) individuals, where one (the debtor) must perform a service to the other (the creditor)[6]." And to complete it, we resort to other concepts such as "an obligation is a temporary legal relationship that compels us to give, do, or not do something, generally economically appreciable, for the benefit of someone who, by our act or the act of someone legally related to us, or by law, has acquired the right to demand this action or omission from us (3)."; "an obligation is a legal relationship, of a temporary nature, established between debtor and creditor, and whose object consists of a personal economic performance, positive or negative, owed by the former to the latter, guaranteeing its fulfillment through their assets (BARROS, 97)
[7]".
1.1 The End of the Obligation
Maria Helena Diniz clarifies that the "possibility of the debtor being exonerated by abandoning the real right, renouncing the right to the thing"[8]. Sílvio Rodrigues states that "the debtor is freed from the obligation by abandoning the real right"[9].
Sílvio Venosa links the extinction of the obligation to its transfer, "the birth, transmission, and extinction of the propter rem obligation follow the real right, with a vinculation of accession"[10];
From these doctrinal statements, it is possible to affirm that the propter rem obligation, by accompanying the thing, only ceases for the obligated party in the same way that the transfer of the thing occurs, that is, by its tradition, or by the abandonment of the thing.
1.2 Transfer of the Obligation
Regarding transfer, Maria Helena Diniz states that "transmissibility through legal transactions, in which case the obligation will fall upon the acquirer"[11]. Sílvio Rodrigues explains that "the obligation is transmitted to the singular successors of the debtor."
Sílvio Venosa also states that "the so-called real obligation forms, in a way, part of the content of the real right, and its effectiveness towards the singular successors of the debtor provides stability to the content of the right[12]".
2. Legal Application
2.1 Cases of Application
The following are propter rem obligations:
- The obligation of a condominium owner to contribute to the conservation or division of the common property; - The obligation of neighboring property owners to contribute to the expenses of building boundary fences; - The obligation of the acquirer of a mortgaged asset to pay the debt that encumbers it if they wish to release it; - The obligation of the owner of assets incorporated into the national historical and artistic heritage not to destroy or carry out works that modify their appearance; - The obligation of owners of adjoining properties to contribute to the expenses of marking and renewing destroyed boundary markers; - The negative obligation in the case of easements, where the owner of the servient estate cannot impede the legitimate use of the easement; - The obligation of the owner to provide collateral regarding imminent damage to a neighboring property; - Obligations related to neighborly rights;
3. Jurisprudence
3.1 First Jurisprudence
JUDICIAL POWER
SANTA CATARINA
TRIBUNAL OF JUSTICE - SECTION OF PRIVATE LAW
26th CHAMBER
AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.221.335-0/5
"The propter rem obligation is one in which the debtor, by being the holder of a right over a thing, is subject to a certain performance that, consequently, did not arise from the express or tacit manifestation of their will.
What makes them a debtor is the circumstance of being the holder of the real right, and so true is this that they are released from the obligation if they renounce this right.
Therefore, the condominium debt is linked to the unit that generated it. The owner of the property will be liable for the debt, even if the ownership has changed and the debt predates it.
In this context, see the jurisprudence of the Hon. Superior Court of Justice:
"Sheriff's Sale - Real Estate - Condominium Fees - Responsibility - Acquirer. Procedural Civil and Civil - Condominium - Condominium Fees - Passive Legitimacy - Sheriff's Sale – Appeal not admitted. 1 - Following the orientation adopted by this Court, the acquirer, in a sheriff's sale, is responsible for the condominium charges incident on the foreclosed property, even if they predate the sheriff's sale, given the 'propter rem' nature of condominium installments. 2 - Appeal not admitted." (Resp. No. 572.767-0-SC, Rel. Min. Jorge Scartezzini, j. 04/19/2005, pub. 05/16/2005)
3.1 Second Jurisprudence
JUDICIAL POWER
SÃO PAULO
TRIBUNAL OF JUSTICE
34th CHAMBER OF PRIVATE LAW
AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.219.012.0072
SANTOS - 8th CIVIL COURT
APPELLANT: NICOLINO BOZZELLA
APPELLEE: CONDOMÍNIO EDIFÍCIO VAN GOGH
CONDOMINIUM EXPENSES - COLLECTION - ENFORCEMENT
CONDOMINIUM EXPENSES - ENFORCEMENT - PROPTER REM OBLIGATION - ATTACHMENT OF THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT - POSSIBILITY. As it is a propter rem obligation, the attachment of the condominium unit that caused the debt is possible, as it is covered by the exception enshrined in art. 3, IV, of Law 8.009/90. APPEAL DENIED.
VOTE NO. 6789
1. This is an interlocutory appeal filed by Nicolino Bozzella, seeking the reversal of the respected decision, issued in the context of a condominium expense collection action, in the enforcement phase, which denied the substitution of the attachment of the debtor unit for a less burdensome property for the debtor.
Dissatisfied, the appellant argues for the need to substitute the attachment for a less burdensome property, as well as its inviolability, as it is a family home.
The appeal proceeded without a suspensive effect (p. 37). The appellee filed a response (pp. 40/93), requesting the condemnation of the appellant for bad-faith litigation.
This is the essential summary.
2. This is a condominium expense collection action filed by the condominium against the unit owner, arguing that the defendant failed to pay the condominium expenses.
The responsibility for condominium debts is propter rem, as it is directly and fully guaranteed by the asset itself that originated them. [...]
3.2 Third Jurisprudence
Superior Court of Justice
AGRAVO REGIMENTAL NO RECURSO ESPECIAL NO. 657.386 - SP (2004/0061230-1)
RAPPORTEUR: MINISTER LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO
APPELLANT: ALCIDES PANUCI
ATTORNEY: KAOR TIBA
APPELLEE: CONDOMÍNIO EDIFÍCIO MANSÃO DO BARÃO DE PORTO ALEGRE
ATTORNEY: CINTHYA MACEDO PIMENTEL AND OTHERS
SUMMARY
REGIMENTAL APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL. COLLECTION OF CONDOMINIUM INSTALLMENTS. PROPTER REM OBLIGATION. REGIMENTAL APPEAL DENIED.
The appealed decision duly applied the jurisprudence of this Court, to the effect that the collection of condominium installments, being a propter rem obligation, can be filed against both the seller and the buyer.
Regimental appeal denied.
Final Considerations
After a humble yet enriching research, it is possible to formulate in my own words some pertinent considerations on Propter Rem Obligations, thus defining them as obligations that follow the thing; perpetual obligations that pass with the tradition from the former owner to the new, obligating them to satisfy such obligation.
The Propter Rem Obligation can only be extinguished for an owner through the tradition of the thing to a new owner, when the latter assumes the obligation. Or by abandonment, where the obligation is ceased when, at the same time, the status of possession over the thing is relinquished.
The abandonment that extinguishes the propter rem obligation is the same that extinguishes possession, therefore there is nothing to be said about suspension but rather a definitive loss of the right to the thing.
It is not only taxes that are a propter rem obligation; this is just an example. Any obligation that follows the thing, such as the easement of land, or any other that follows the thing, leading to the rich doctrine on the subject.
In conclusion, the propter rem obligation is considered as natural for responsibility towards the community, whether for the land marked by the necessary easement for passage, or for the condominium necessary for the maintenance and conservation of the property. There is no separation of this obligation from the thing, without implying deterioration or prejudice to the community.
Bibliographical References
BARROS MONTEIRO, Washington de. Curso de Direito Civil. Vol.4.25th Ed. 1991 Editora Saraiva, São Paulo.
DINIZ, Maria Helena. Curso de Direito Civil Brasileiro. 2nd Volume. 10th Edition. Ed. Saraiva. P. 11. GOMES, Orlando. Obrigações. 11th Edition. Ed. Forense. p. 21.
LOPES, Lívia Cardoso; et al. Das obrigações "propter rem" em face do novo Código Civil brasileiro. UGC, 2003. Available at: <http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/ texto.asp?id=4798>, Accessed on Sep 25, 09.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Direito Civil – Vol. 2 – Parte Geral das Obrigações. 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Teoria Geral das Obrigações e Teoria Geral dos Contratos.3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; AgRg no RECURSO ESPECIAL NO. 657.386 - SP (2004/0061230-1); RELATOR: MINISTER LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO. Available at http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-1000000190381-4-000-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 24, 09.
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; SEÇÃO DE DIREITO PRIVADO; 26a CÂMARA - AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.221.335-0/5. Available at http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-00000019 0381-4-df00-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 24, 09.
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; JUDICIAL POWER - SÃO PAULO - 34a CÂMARA DE DIREITO PRIVADO; VOTO NO. 6789; Available at http://ww w.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-00000019 038133-4-df00-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 25, 09.
WALD, Arnoldo. Obrigações e Contratos. 12th ed. Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. p. 60.
[1]
GOMES, Orlando. Obrigações. 11th Edition. Ed. Forense. p. 21.
WALD, Arnoldo. Obrigações e Contratos. 12th Edition. Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. p. 60.
DINIZ, Maria Helena. Curso de Direito Civil Brasileiro. 2nd Volume. 10th Edition. Ed. Saraiva. p. 11.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Direito Civil – Vol. 2 – Parte Geral das Obrigações. 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Teoria Geral das Obrigações e Teoria Geral dos Contratos.3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem
DE BARROS MONTEIRO, Washington (1997, v. 4:8).
DINIZ, Maria Helena Ibidem , p. 11.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Ibidem , 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem , 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
DINIZ, Maria Helena Ibidem , p. 11.
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem , 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
Sílvio de Souza Lôbo Júnior
Introduction
This work seeks to illuminate the propter rem obligation, relating doctrine, especially Maria Helena Diniz, Sílvio Rodrigues, and Sílvio Venosa, in addition to selecting three court decisions, two from the state of São Paulo, Court of Justice, 34th Chamber of Private Law, and one from the Court of Justice - Section of Private Law of the 26th Chamber of Santa Catarina, doctrinal aspects, and current Brazilian legislation and jurisprudence.
The first purpose is definitions. To understand the term, and develop a concept that will help in finding such an obligation in the Civil Code and its application in real cases, in actual situations, amidst daily life and conflicts.
Secondly, to attribute such a concept to the real fact, its relationship with Real Law, thus the propter rem obligation as an aspect of the real obligation, and its relationship between the owner and the property, its real link to the thing.
Finally, jurisprudence demonstrating the position of some courts with their decisions on this topic.
1. Doctrinal Definitions,
The propter rem obligations, according to Orlando Gomes, "arise from the debtor's real right over a certain thing"[1]. Arnoldo Wald states that obligations "derive from someone's link to certain assets, over which duties arise from the need to maintain the thing"[2]. Meanwhile, Maria Helena Diniz states that it is a "link to a real right, that is, to a certain thing of which the debtor is the owner or possessor"[3].
Among other doctrinal scholars, in simple terms, Sílvio Rodrigues describes propter rem by saying that, "it binds the holder of a real right, whoever they may be, by virtue of their status as owner or possessor[4]". Sílvio Venosa explains it by stating that "it is an obligatory relationship characterized by its link to the thing"[5].
Illuminated by these scholars, it is possible to define propter rem obligations as obligations that follow the real object (thing), such as condominium fees for a property or property tax (IPTU).
Another definition is that an obligation "is a temporary pecuniary legal relationship, uniting two (or more) individuals, where one (the debtor) must perform a service to the other (the creditor)[6]." And to complete it, we resort to other concepts such as "an obligation is a temporary legal relationship that compels us to give, do, or not do something, generally economically appreciable, for the benefit of someone who, by our act or the act of someone legally related to us, or by law, has acquired the right to demand this action or omission from us (3)."; "an obligation is a legal relationship, of a temporary nature, established between debtor and creditor, and whose object consists of a personal economic performance, positive or negative, owed by the former to the latter, guaranteeing its fulfillment through their assets (BARROS, 97)
[7]".
1.1 The End of the Obligation
Maria Helena Diniz clarifies that the "possibility of the debtor being exonerated by abandoning the real right, renouncing the right to the thing"[8]. Sílvio Rodrigues states that "the debtor is freed from the obligation by abandoning the real right"[9].
Sílvio Venosa links the extinction of the obligation to its transfer, "the birth, transmission, and extinction of the propter rem obligation follow the real right, with a vinculation of accession"[10];
From these doctrinal statements, it is possible to affirm that the propter rem obligation, by accompanying the thing, only ceases for the obligated party in the same way that the transfer of the thing occurs, that is, by its tradition, or by the abandonment of the thing.
1.2 Transfer of the Obligation
Regarding transfer, Maria Helena Diniz states that "transmissibility through legal transactions, in which case the obligation will fall upon the acquirer"[11]. Sílvio Rodrigues explains that "the obligation is transmitted to the singular successors of the debtor."
Sílvio Venosa also states that "the so-called real obligation forms, in a way, part of the content of the real right, and its effectiveness towards the singular successors of the debtor provides stability to the content of the right[12]".
2. Legal Application
2.1 Cases of Application
The following are propter rem obligations:
- The obligation of a condominium owner to contribute to the conservation or division of the common property; - The obligation of neighboring property owners to contribute to the expenses of building boundary fences; - The obligation of the acquirer of a mortgaged asset to pay the debt that encumbers it if they wish to release it; - The obligation of the owner of assets incorporated into the national historical and artistic heritage not to destroy or carry out works that modify their appearance; - The obligation of owners of adjoining properties to contribute to the expenses of marking and renewing destroyed boundary markers; - The negative obligation in the case of easements, where the owner of the servient estate cannot impede the legitimate use of the easement; - The obligation of the owner to provide collateral regarding imminent damage to a neighboring property; - Obligations related to neighborly rights;
3. Jurisprudence
3.1 First Jurisprudence
JUDICIAL POWER
SANTA CATARINA
TRIBUNAL OF JUSTICE - SECTION OF PRIVATE LAW
26th CHAMBER
AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.221.335-0/5
"The propter rem obligation is one in which the debtor, by being the holder of a right over a thing, is subject to a certain performance that, consequently, did not arise from the express or tacit manifestation of their will.
What makes them a debtor is the circumstance of being the holder of the real right, and so true is this that they are released from the obligation if they renounce this right.
Therefore, the condominium debt is linked to the unit that generated it. The owner of the property will be liable for the debt, even if the ownership has changed and the debt predates it.
In this context, see the jurisprudence of the Hon. Superior Court of Justice:
"Sheriff's Sale - Real Estate - Condominium Fees - Responsibility - Acquirer. Procedural Civil and Civil - Condominium - Condominium Fees - Passive Legitimacy - Sheriff's Sale – Appeal not admitted. 1 - Following the orientation adopted by this Court, the acquirer, in a sheriff's sale, is responsible for the condominium charges incident on the foreclosed property, even if they predate the sheriff's sale, given the 'propter rem' nature of condominium installments. 2 - Appeal not admitted." (Resp. No. 572.767-0-SC, Rel. Min. Jorge Scartezzini, j. 04/19/2005, pub. 05/16/2005)
3.2 Second Jurisprudence
JUDICIAL POWER
SÃO PAULO
TRIBUNAL OF JUSTICE
34th CHAMBER OF PRIVATE LAW
AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.219.012.0072
SANTOS - 8th CIVIL COURT
APPELLANT: NICOLINO BOZZELLA
APPELLEE: CONDOMÍNIO EDIFÍCIO VAN GOGH
CONDOMINIUM EXPENSES - COLLECTION - ENFORCEMENT
CONDOMINIUM EXPENSES - ENFORCEMENT - PROPTER REM OBLIGATION - ATTACHMENT OF THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT - POSSIBILITY. As it is a propter rem obligation, the attachment of the condominium unit that caused the debt is possible, as it is covered by the exception enshrined in art. 3, IV, of Law 8.009/90. APPEAL DENIED.
VOTE NO. 6789
1. This is an interlocutory appeal filed by Nicolino Bozzella, seeking the reversal of the respected decision, issued in the context of a condominium expense collection action, in the enforcement phase, which denied the substitution of the attachment of the debtor unit for a less burdensome property for the debtor.
Dissatisfied, the appellant argues for the need to substitute the attachment for a less burdensome property, as well as its inviolability, as it is a family home.
The appeal proceeded without a suspensive effect (p. 37). The appellee filed a response (pp. 40/93), requesting the condemnation of the appellant for bad-faith litigation.
This is the essential summary.
2. This is a condominium expense collection action filed by the condominium against the unit owner, arguing that the defendant failed to pay the condominium expenses.
The responsibility for condominium debts is propter rem, as it is directly and fully guaranteed by the asset itself that originated them. [...]
3.3 Third Jurisprudence
Superior Court of Justice
AGRAVO REGIMENTAL NO RECURSO ESPECIAL NO. 657.386 - SP (2004/0061230-1)
RAPPORTEUR: MINISTER LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO
APPELLANT: ALCIDES PANUCI
ATTORNEY: KAOR TIBA
APPELLEE: CONDOMÍNIO EDIFÍCIO MANSÃO DO BARÃO DE PORTO ALEGRE
ATTORNEY: CINTHYA MACEDO PIMENTEL AND OTHERS
SUMMARY
REGIMENTAL APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL. COLLECTION OF CONDOMINIUM INSTALLMENTS. PROPTER REM OBLIGATION. REGIMENTAL APPEAL DENIED.
The appealed decision duly applied the jurisprudence of this Court, to the effect that the collection of condominium installments, being a propter rem obligation, can be filed against both the promisor seller and the promisor buyer.
Regimental appeal denied.
Final Considerations
After a humble yet enriching research, it is possible to formulate in my own words some pertinent considerations on Propter Rem Obligations, thus defining them as obligations that follow the thing; perpetual obligations that pass with the tradition from the former owner to the new, obligating them to satisfy such obligation.
The Propter Rem Obligation can only be extinguished for an owner through the tradition of the thing to a new owner, when the latter assumes the obligation. Or by abandonment, where the obligation is ceased when, at the same time, the status of possession over the thing is relinquished.
The abandonment that extinguishes the propter rem obligation is the same that extinguishes possession, therefore there is nothing to be said about suspension but rather a definitive loss of the right to the thing.
It is not only taxes that are a propter rem obligation; this is just an example. Any obligation that follows the thing, such as the easement of land, or any other that follows the thing, leading to the rich doctrine on the subject.
In conclusion, the propter rem obligation is considered as natural for responsibility towards the community, whether for the land marked by the necessary easement for passage, or for the condominium necessary for the maintenance and conservation of the property. There is no separation of this obligation from the thing, without implying deterioration or prejudice to the community.
Bibliographical References
BARROS MONTEIRO, Washington de. Curso de Direito Civil. Vol.4.25th Ed. 1991 Editora Saraiva, São Paulo.
DINIZ, Maria Helena. Curso de Direito Civil Brasileiro. 2nd Volume. 10th Edition. Ed. Saraiva. P. 11. GOMES, Orlando. Obrigações. 11th Edition. Ed. Forense. p. 21.
LOPES, Lívia Cardoso; et al. Das obrigações "propter rem" em face do novo Código Civil brasileiro. UGC, 2003. Available at: <http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/ texto.asp?id=4798>, Accessed on Sep 25, 09.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Direito Civil – Vol. 2 – Parte Geral das Obrigações. 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Teoria Geral das Obrigações e Teoria Geral dos Contratos.3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; AgRg no RECURSO ESPECIAL NO. 657.386 - SP (2004/0061230-1); RELATOR: MINISTER LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO. Available at http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-1000000190381-4-000-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 24, 09.
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; SEÇÃO DE DIREITO PRIVADO; 26a CÂMARA - AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO NO. 1.221.335-0/5. Available at http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-00000019 0381-4-df00-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 24, 09.
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA; JUDICIAL POWER - SÃO PAULO - 34a CÂMARA DE DIREITO PRIVADO; VOTO NO. 6789; Available at http://ww w.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4448035/1903814-mg-00000019 038133-4-df00-1-tjmg. Accessed on Sep 25, 09.
WALD, Arnoldo. Obrigações e Contratos. 12th ed. Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. p. 60.
[1]
GOMES, Orlando. Obrigações. 11th Edition. Ed. Forense. p. 21.
WALD, Arnoldo. Obrigações e Contratos. 12th Edition. Ed. Revista dos Tribunais. p. 60.
DINIZ, Maria Helena. Curso de Direito Civil Brasileiro. 2nd Volume. 10th Edition. Ed. Saraiva. p. 11.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Direito Civil – Vol. 2 – Parte Geral das Obrigações. 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Teoria Geral das Obrigações e Teoria Geral dos Contratos.3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem
DE BARROS MONTEIRO, Washington (1997, v. 4:8).
DINIZ, Maria HelenaIbidem , p. 11.
RODRIGUES, Sílvio. Ibidem , 30th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2002
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem , 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
DINIZ, Maria HelenaIbidem , p. 11.
SALVO VENOSA, Sílvio. Ibidem , 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2003.
