Unicidade conceitual material dos alimentos: equiparação do regime jurídico processual dos alimentos legítimos e decorrentes de ato ilícito

Abstract

This course conclusion work analyzes the applicability of the procedural legal regime of alimony to those established as a result of an action or omission that generates bodily harm. There is, in the present work, a specific analysis of the applicability of the procedural legal regime to the individual, as well as it does not cover labor relations. It starts from the premise of a conceptual unity of food, so that the definition of the institute is not related to the cause of its fixation, so that it would be possible to apply the legal regime of civil prison to the debtor of food arising from Civil Liability, in the terms of articles 948, 950 and 951 of the Civil Code. Methodologically, the present work confronts the definitions of the institute elaborated by the national doctrine, starting from the hypothesis of a common concept, a uniqueness that allows the assimilation of food, indistinctly to the causes of fixation. The procedural normative arrangement is also analyzed, in order to verify complete compatibility of the structure with alimony in an unspecific way, allowing the debtor's civil arrest on both occasions. The theme is justified above all by the forensic recurrence, especially on the agenda of higher courts. Although there are repeated decisions for the distinction of alimony established in terms of the Rights of Families and those arising from Civil Liability, the issue does not seem settled, deserving new arrangements and re-readings. Food is generally studied from the perspective of family rights, especially in kinship relationships. However, it is well known that the matter extends to other fields, such as Labor Law and especially in Civil Liability. Our legal system determines three possibilities for setting compensation of a food nature, attracting a special relevance to the subject, given the different procedural legal regime for food, compared to other executive forms of other obligations. However, most scholars and also the settled jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), understand that the food character given by the legislator toindemnities resulting from omission or illicit act should not receive the same legal treatment as the food set as a result of the family rights. In conclusion, we intend to revisit the traditional food institute, proposing an interpretation by the uniqueness, so that it is possible to make compatible the applicability of the civil procedural legal regime of food in all its causes of fixation.