O ônus da prova na arguição de falsidade de assinatura com firma

Abstract

The present work aims to study the distribution of the burden of proof in the allegation of false signature, according to the system of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure of 2015. Although Article 429, II, CPC/15 establishes that in challenging the authenticity of a document, the burden of proof rests with the party who produced the documentary evidence, part of the doctrine and jurisprudence understands that if a private document has a prior certification of the signatory's subscription, such as the notary's recognition of the signature, the document will enjoy a presumption of authenticity, and the burden of proof will fall on the party who alleged the falsity to prove their allegations. Therefore, this monograph was developed in order to clarify the divergent points and reach a conclusion on who bears the burden of proof in the allegation of false signature when there is a notary's recognition of the signature. To do so, deductive method will be used, analyzing the civil procedural legislation, special legislation regulating the distribution of the burden of proof, the probative effectiveness of documentary evidence, and the procedure for alleging documentary falsity. Furthermore, the jurisprudential and doctrinal positions regarding the topic will be analyzed, which revealed that the existence of certification of the signature of the signatory of the private document, through notary's recognition of the signature, does not change the rule of burden of proof distribution established in Article 429, II, of the CPC/15, where the burden of proof lies with the party who produced the document to prove its authenticity