Temas polêmicos sobre a prova no processo civil

• Ano de defesa: 2025
• Autor(a) principal: Bonilha, Priscila Telio
• Orientador(a): Alvarez, Anselmo Prieto
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito
• Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Destinatário da prova; Prova emprestada; Produção antecipada de provas; Processo civil; Poderes instrutórios do juiz
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Recipient of evidence; Borrowed evidence; Early production of evidence; Civil procedure; Investigatory powers of the judge
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/44126

This research aims to study some controversial topics about evidence in civil proceedings, among which the following stand out: Judge's Investigatory Powers, Recipient of Evidence, Borrowed Evidence, Early Production of Evidence, Rescissory Action and Illegal Evidence. In view of this, this dissertation presents as its general objective: to analyze evidence as a fundamental right of the parties, with the judge not being the only recipient of evidence, since it is intended for the proceedings in general, as a fundamental rule linked to the adversarial system and full defense. And as specific objectives: to recognize that the right to evidence production in civil proceedings has been assured to the parties as a fundamental right; to understand that the right to evidence constitutes a constitutional guarantee of the parties, so that they can effectively participate and influence the formation of the judge's conviction; to elucidate how evidentiary law is structured within the scope of the CPC/2015; to relate the right to evidence production with the principles of adversarial system and full defense. In order to achieve the proposed objectives, the research seeks to answer the following question: “In procedural law, why is the judge not the only recipient of evidence, and how is evidentiary law structured within the scope of the CPC, especially the current CPC/2015?”. In order to seek to answer the research problem, as well as achieve the previously proposed objectives, the methodology used is a qualitative, descriptive research, involving a study with the performance of research through the analysis of documents, as well as the performance of bibliographic research. The records will be related to the bibliographic and documentary research, composing a triangulation of data sources, in order to cross reference them for interpretation, supporting the research. As a result, this work proved the hypothesis that the judge is not the only recipient of evidence, but rather the process itself, and this is also evidenced by the admissibility of borrowed evidence, as well as by the major change that the current CPC imposed on the action of advance production of evidence. Beyond the question of the addressee of the evidence, this work brought other relevant aspects about evidentiary law: Investigatory Powers of the Judge, Borrowed Evidence, Early Production of Evidence, Rescissory Action and Illegal Evidence