Find a debt-help route outside the United States

SettleADebt C_BR PASS-19 — Brazil

Ordinary civil revelia and ensuing merits-judgment gateway

Reviewed component: The revelia/default and ensuing judgment portion of P01 D15 only.

Actual source-access dates: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026, UTC. Exact source-opening clocks: Unknown. Publication, signature and judgment dates below are not access timestamps.

Assumed procedural setting: An ordinary private consumer-money dispute under the CPC’s procedimento comum. An execution proceeding, ação monitória, small-claims case, insolvency proceeding or public-debt action can have materially different rules and is not treated as interchangeable.

P04, P05, P08, P09, P10, P16 and P18 remain unreviewed for this purpose. None of their findings is adopted. Necessary CPC and limited CDC provisions were read afresh. The supplied P01 review remains a same-coordinator scoped review, not whole-country or all-source certification.

Central determination: Revelia is a procedural status, not an automatic judgment for the claimant. It can create a rebuttable presumption concerning factual allegations, but statutory exceptions, the existing evidence, the applicable law, the requested relief and the defendant’s remaining procedural opportunities still matter. The court may grant, partly grant or reject the claim. C_BR-P19-C004, C009–C016, C065. Planalto+1

No actual person, creditor, debtor, account, contract, court order, service record, deadline or private proceeding was examined.

1. Operative framework and currentness

1.1 Current CPC and temporal boundaries

The primary body is the current compiled Lei 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm

The official parallel amended text was also read:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm

The material provisions include arts. 344–349 and the linked provisions on defense, evidence, judgment, reasoning, relief and finality identified below.

Article 1.045 specifies one year after official publication; the footer identifies DOU publication on March 17, 2015. Article 14 preserves completed procedural acts and established procedural situations; arts. 1.046–1.047 contain transition qualifications. Article 1.054 separately limits the expanded preliminary-issue finality rule in art. 503 §1 to proceedings begun after the CPC’s commencement. No exact original effective-date calculation or full historic-case transition opinion is made. C001. Planalto

Two 2026 instruments displayed by the official CPC compilation were checked narrowly:

C002, C077. Full URLs: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15479.htm https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15484.htm Planalto+1

This is a bounded examination of the displayed current bodies, not certification that every potentially applicable procedural amendment or special statute has been exhausted.

1.2 Preconditions, not a service rerun

A default classification first requires a valid procedural opportunity to answer. CPC art. 239 supplies the general citation prerequisite and the voluntary-appearance qualification. Procedural representation and curatorship can matter under arts. 72, 76 and 103.

Those provisions were read only to prevent treating an unserved, improperly represented or statutorily protected defendant as an ordinary unanswered defendant without further inquiry. P18’s service findings are not incorporated, and no CNJ or actual-service analysis is repeated. C003.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body above, arts. 72, 76, 103 and 239. Planalto+2

2. Revelia: status, factual effect and exceptions

2.1 What creates the status

Under art. 344, a defendant who does not contest the action is considered revel. The associated factual presumption must then be tested separately.

Missing the conciliation hearing under art. 334 is not the same event as failing to file a contestação. Hearing nonattendance has its own requirements and possible consequence; it does not by itself establish that no timely defense was filed. C004–C005.

The ordinary art. 335 defense period is 15 procedural days. Depending on the applicable branch, its trigger is:

• the unsuccessful conciliation/mediation hearing or last session;
• the qualifying request to cancel that hearing; or
• the applicable statutory service event.

The actual route, valid notice, multiple-party rules, procedural privileges and court calendar remain prerequisites. No actual answer deadline is supplied here. C006, C074.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 219, 334–335 and 344. Planalto+1

2.2 Failure to answer versus failure to deny a particular fact

Article 341 requires a defendant who answers to address factual allegations specifically, subject to exceptions:

• confession is legally inadmissible concerning the fact;
• an instrument constituting the substance of the act is missing; or
• the allegation conflicts with the defense considered as a whole.

The specific-denial burden does not apply to the public defender, court-appointed lawyer or special curator.

Thus an inadequate denial and complete failure to contest are related but different procedural questions. A legally permitted general denial by a special curator is not treated as no defense merely because it lacks detailed factual admissions. C007–C008.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, art. 341 and sole paragraph; art. 72. Planalto

2.3 What the presumption covers

Article 344 concerns allegations of fact. It does not require the court to accept:

• the claimant’s legal characterization;
• an unlawful remedy;
• an unsupported contractual interpretation;
• a requested rate or penalty merely because it was demanded; or
• relief outside the claim.

The STJ’s published September 2026 judgment expressly states that default effects are relative and do not produce automatic success; the allegations must be examined against the evidence. C009, C016. STJ

This does not mean every fact must always be independently proved despite a valid presumption. CPC art. 374 recognizes that facts supported by a legal presumption ordinarily do not require separate proof. The court must first determine whether the presumption applies, to what facts, and whether contrary evidence or an exception defeats it. C028.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 344–345, 371 and 374. Planalto+1

2.4 All art. 345 exceptions

C010–C015. Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 345(I)–(IV). Planalto

Co-defendant qualification

In a June 2026 consumer-debt judgment, the STJ stated that even in simple passive joinder, one defendant’s defense and evidence may benefit a defaulting co-defendant where the facts are common and the evidence removes the presumption. That ruling does not make every fact common merely because two defendants appear in the caption. C011. STJ

3. Participation after default and remaining opportunities

3.1 Publication and representation

Article 346 provides that periods against a defaulting defendant without counsel in the case run from publication of the decisional act in the official organ.

This is not an individualized deadline calculation. Publication identification, the relevant act and general counting rules still matter. Once counsel is properly constituted, the applicable counsel-notification rules must be considered; appearance does not automatically restart expired periods. C017–C019.

The same article expressly permits the defaulting defendant to intervene at any stage, receiving the case in its existing state. Late participation is therefore allowed, but it is not a right to rewind the whole case. Planalto+1

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 272 and 346.

3.2 Evidence after default

Article 349 permits the defaulting defendant to produce evidence contrary to the claimant’s allegations if represented in time to perform the procedural steps necessary for that evidence.

STF Súmula 231 states the corresponding principle: a defaulting civil defendant may produce evidence if appearing in time. This is an ordinary STF súmula, not a súmula vinculante. The official entry was read; the historical underlying decisions were not individually rerun. C020, C022.

Primary URLs:

• CPC art. 349: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm
• STF Súmula 231: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudencia/sumariosumulas.asp?base=30&sumula=4151 Planalto+1

Not every requested item must be produced

Under arts. 370–371, the judge determines necessary evidence, rejects useless or merely delaying steps through a reasoned decision, and evaluates the evidence regardless of which party supplied it.

A 2025 STJ judgment upheld, within its particular documentary record and review limits, a reasoned conclusion that further evidence was unnecessary. It does not remove art. 349’s opportunity to request material counter-evidence. C021, C036. Planalto+1

3.3 Later allegations and just cause

Article 342 permits new allegations after the answer only within the stated branches:

• supervening law or facts;
• matters the judge must consider ex officio; or
• express legal authorization to raise them at any time and level.

This is not an unlimited license to present an ordinary factual defense whenever convenient. C023. Planalto

Article 223 separately permits a party to prove justa causa: an event outside the party’s will that prevented the procedural act. If recognized, the judge permits the act within a period fixed by the court. No ordinary forgetfulness, missed email or private assertion is automatically sufficient, and this gateway does not decide a post-judgment reopening remedy. C024.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 223 and 342. Planalto

3.4 When the factual effect does not apply

Under art. 348, where the defendant does not answer but the art. 344 effect does not arise, the judge must order the claimant to specify intended evidence if it has not already been identified.

Article 348 itself does not state a universal 15-day period. The actual order and the applicable general rule in art. 218 must be examined. A deadline from another adjacent article cannot simply be imported. C025. Planalto+1

4. Proof, burden and the consumer qualification

4.1 Ordinary burden

CPC art. 373 ordinarily assigns:

• to the claimant, proof of facts constituting the asserted right;
• to the defendant, proof of impeding, modifying or extinguishing facts.

The valid operation of art. 344 and art. 374 can relieve separate proof of particular facts; it does not dispense with the legal requirements of the claim or override art. 345. C026–C028.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 373–374. Planalto

4.2 Redistribution is reasoned and prospective enough to permit compliance

Article 373 §1 permits a different burden allocation where:

• law provides it;
• the ordinary burden is impossible or excessively difficult to discharge; or
• the opposing party has greater ease of producing contrary evidence.

The court must explain the redistribution and give the affected party an opportunity to discharge the new burden. Section 2 prohibits replacing one difficulty with an impossible or excessively difficult burden on the other party.

A burden-shifting agreement is also limited: it cannot concern a party’s non-disposable right or make exercise of the right excessively difficult. C029–C030. Planalto

4.3 CDC inversion is not automatic from a label or default

The fresh CDC read establishes:

• arts. 2–3: consumer/supplier predicates, including the relevant service category;
• art. 6(VIII): judicial inversion in the consumer’s favor where the statutory plausibility or hipossuficiência criterion is satisfied according to ordinary experience;
• art. 51(VI): invalidity of a contractual burden reversal detrimental to the consumer.

A consumer can be claimant or defendant. A creditor does not acquire the consumer’s evidentiary protection merely by calling its claim a consumer debt. Nor does default automatically establish the CDC inversion predicates. C031–C032.

Full primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm, arts. 2–3, 6(VIII), 51(VI). Planalto+1

No full contract, fee, abusive-term or collection report is incorporated.

4.4 Contradictory process and judicial proof

The court’s evidence powers do not authorize an unexplained surprise outcome. CPC arts. 9–11 preserve the applicable opportunity to be heard and reason-giving requirements, including art. 10’s rule against deciding on an unaddressed ground, subject to the statutory procedural setting.

The judge may determine necessary evidence, but the court is not automatically obliged to rescue a claimant that declines a proper evidence opportunity and fails to establish an essential fact. C021, C025–C033, C068. Planalto+1

5. From default to early, partial or evidentiary judgment

5.1 Early merits judgment

Article 355 has two separate routes:

C034–C036. Primary URL: CPC compiled body, art. 355. Planalto

If a material factual question requires evidence, default alone is not a reason to bypass it. Conversely, a generic evidence request does not necessarily prevent judgment where the judge explains why it is unnecessary.

5.2 Organization of the remaining case

If the case is not ready for disposition, art. 357 requires the judge to organize it by:

• resolving pending procedural questions;
• identifying factual issues and permitted evidence;
• allocating the burden of proof;
• identifying relevant legal issues; and
• scheduling an evidentiary hearing where necessary.

After that decision, the parties have a common five-day period to seek clarification or adjustments. The ensuing procedural stability is not the same as merits coisa julgada. C037–C038. Planalto

5.3 Partial merits judgment

Under art. 356, the court decides one or more claims—or a part of them—where they are uncontested or otherwise ready for immediate judgment under art. 355.

The decision may recognize a liquid or unliquidated obligation. The remaining part of the case can continue. Article 356 supplies separate liquidation/enforcement and challenge consequences, but their full procedure is outside this report. In particular, the partial merits decision is not simply interchangeable with the judgment ending the entire cognitive phase. C039–C042.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 203, 356 and 487(I). Planalto

A default declaration alone does not establish that every requested component is legally uncontested, separable and ready.

6. Reasons, amount and limits of relief

6.1 Essential judgment structure

Article 489 requires the judgment’s report, reasons and dispositive conclusion. Under §1, a decision is not adequately reasoned where it:

1. merely cites or paraphrases a rule without explaining its connection to the case;
2. uses an indeterminate concept without explaining its concrete application;
3. gives reasons that would fit any case;
4. fails to address arguments capable, in principle, of defeating the conclusion;
5. invokes a precedent or súmula without its determining rationale and factual fit; or
6. disregards an invoked precedent, jurisprudence or súmula without explaining distinction or overruling.

Where norms conflict, §2 requires explanation of the balancing and factual premises. Section 3 requires reading the decision as a whole and in good faith.

“Defendant defaulted; therefore everything requested is granted” is not a substitute for these requirements. C043–C050.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 489. Planalto

6.2 Amount of the monetary obligation

Article 491 ordinarily requires the money judgment to define:

• the extent of the obligation;
• the correction index;
• the interest rate;
• the starting point of correction and interest; and
• capitalization periodicity, where applicable.

The exceptions are where the amount cannot be definitively determined or determining it requires evidence recognized in the judgment as excessively costly or time-consuming. Those situations permit later liquidation.

Default does not itself establish the requested rate, fee, penalty or calculation. The source of each must remain lawful and supported. C051–C052, C057. Planalto

6.3 Liquidation is not a second opportunity to prove the entire claim

Article 509 distinguishes:

• liquidation by valuation/arbitration where legally appropriate;
• common-procedure liquidation where new facts concerning quantification must be alleged and proved; and
• a purely arithmetic calculation, which does not require a separate liquidation proceeding.

It expressly forbids reopening the decided dispute or modifying the judgment during liquidation.

Accordingly, inference from arts. 491 and 509: an unresolved question whether the defendant owes anything cannot simply be relabeled “amount to be liquidated later.” Entitlement and the permissible scope of later quantification must be decided appropriately. C052–C054.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 491 and 509. Planalto+1

6.4 Relief cannot exceed the claim—but the claim has statutory implicit components

Article 492 prohibits a different type of relief, a higher quantity or a different object from what was demanded. The decision must be certain even when resolving a conditional legal relationship.

However, art. 322 §1 includes legal interest, monetary correction and litigation-cost consequences within the principal claim, and art. 323 addresses continuing instalments. An award above a headline principal figure is therefore not automatically ultra petita merely because it includes a legally implicit component.

C055–C056. Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 322–323 and 492. Planalto+1

6.5 Supervening facts

Article 493 requires consideration of a later constitutive, modifying or extinguishing fact that affects the merits. If the judge identifies it ex officio, the parties must be heard before decision.

This is distinct from giving a late defendant an unrestricted opportunity to revive every omitted factual defense. C058. Planalto

7. Finality and challenge boundaries

7.1 Main claim

Article 502 defines material coisa julgada by a merits decision no longer subject to appeal. Article 503 gives total or partial merits decisions binding force within the limits of the principal issue expressly decided.

A defaulting defendant is not categorically immune from the finality of the main claim merely because no answer was filed. C059–C060. Planalto

7.2 Preliminary issues: an express default exception

Article 503 §1 can extend finality to an expressly and incidentally decided preliminary issue only where:

• the merits depend on it;
• there was prior and effective adversarial participation;
• the court had subject-matter and personal competence to decide it as a principal issue; and
• the §2 restrictions on evidence or depth of cognition do not apply.

The text expressly says that this extension does not apply in cases of revelia. Article 1.054 also preserves a temporal limit for older proceedings. C061. Planalto

7.3 What does not independently become final

Article 504 excludes the reasons and the truth of facts used as the judgment’s foundation from independent coisa julgada. Article 506 binds the parties without prejudicing third parties.

These rules do not erase the operative judgment. They define the limits of what is conclusively decided. C062–C063. Planalto

7.4 Preclusion and reopening

Article 507 restricts relitigation of procedurally precluded questions. After final merits judgment, art. 508 treats allegations and defenses that could have been advanced for or against the claim as raised and rejected.

Article 494 restricts the original judge’s alteration of a published judgment to material/calculation correction and embargos de declaração. The appropriate appeal, nullity challenge, rescission, querela nullitatis or enforcement objection depends on facts and procedure not researched here.

C064–C067. No automatic right to “start over” or automatic loss of every conceivable remedy is concluded. Planalto+1

8. Published judicial qualifications

C011, C016, C022, C036, C068–C069. These are published authorities with stated factual and admissibility limits. No repetitive-theme status, universal prospective rule, finality certificate or exhaustive later citator is claimed. No temporal modulation relevant to this narrow proposition was established in the passages read. Portal STF+4

A 2022 STJ editorial overview was also read as guidance. An older full judgment linked from it failed through two official routes; its unopened body is not used as proof.

9. Twelve fictional workflows

All actors, claims, amounts and procedural events are invented. Valid service and the relevant procedural route must be established independently in any real matter.

H01 — Unanswered ordinary money claim

Facts: A private claimant sues for an ordinary consumer-money obligation. The defendant, properly given an opportunity to answer, files no contestation.

Claims: C003–C004, C009–C016, C034–C035.

Conditional result: The defendant can be revel. The judge must separately test art. 345 and the legal sufficiency of the requested remedy. If the factual effect applies and no timely counter-evidence is requested, early judgment may be available.

Adverse branch: The claimant’s own ledger contradicts the alleged balance or the claim is legally unsupported.

Missing proof/next question: What proves expiration of the correct answer period, and which alleged facts survive every art. 345 exception?

H02 — One co-defendant answers

Facts: A consumer names two defendants. One answers and produces evidence concerning a transaction common to both; the other does not answer.

Claims: C010–C011.

Conditional result: The common defense and evidence can defeat the factual presumption against the non-answering defendant.

Adverse branch: A defense personal to the answering party may not resolve a separate factual allegation against the other.

Missing proof/next question: Which pleaded facts are genuinely common, and which concern only the defaulting defendant?

H03 — Non-disposable right

Facts: The court identifies, under a separately established governing rule, that a material part of the litigation concerns a direito indisponível.

Claims: C012, C025–C028.

Conditional result: Article 345(II) excludes the default factual effect for that branch. Necessary evidence remains required.

Adverse branch: A party merely labels an ordinary disposable monetary interest “public policy” without establishing the statutory predicate.

Missing proof/next question: Which precise rule makes the right non-disposable, and which issue does it affect?

H04 — Legally indispensable instrument missing

Facts: A claimant relies on an act for which the applicable law requires a specified proof instrument, but the petition omits it.

Claims: C013, C025–C028.

Conditional result: Default does not supply the missing legally indispensable instrument under art. 345(III).

Adverse branch: The missing document may merely be useful evidence rather than legally indispensable; another lawful proof method may exist.

Missing proof/next question: What statute makes this particular instrument indispensable to proof of this act?

H05 — Implausible or contradicted allegations

Facts: The claimant alleges no payments were made, while its own authenticated statement lists several payments.

Claims: C014–C016, C021.

Conditional result: The contradiction prevents automatic acceptance of the “no payment” allegation. The judge must examine and explain the evidence.

Adverse branch: The entries could concern another account, reversed transactions or an allocation dispute.

Missing proof/next question: What do the entries represent, and do they actually concern the pleaded obligation?

H06 — Late appearance

Facts: After the answer period, a lawyer appears for the defendant and asks to restart the whole case.

Claims: C017–C024, C064.

Conditional result: The defendant may intervene but receives the case as it stands. Appointment of counsel alone does not revive every expired step.

Adverse branch: Proven justa causa, a supervening fact, an ex officio issue or a service defect may support a different procedural request, requiring separate analysis.

Missing proof/next question: Which specific act was missed, why, and what statutory ground permits it now?

H07 — Appearance while evidence can still be produced

Facts: Before the evidentiary steps are completed, the represented defendant identifies a material disputed entry and requests a targeted examination of records.

Claims: C020–C022, C034–C037.

Conditional result: Article 349 can permit the evidence. The judge must assess necessity rather than reject it merely because the defendant is revel.

Adverse branch: The request may be late for the necessary procedural acts, irrelevant, repetitive or dilatory.

Missing proof/next question: Can the necessary evidence steps still be performed, and what disputed fact would the evidence resolve?

H08 — Liability established but amount unresolved

Facts: The court has a sufficient basis for liability, but a legally permissible part of quantification requires lengthy technical evidence.

Claims: C051–C054.

Conditional result: A reasoned art. 491 exception can permit an unliquidated judgment followed by the appropriate liquidation.

Adverse branch: The missing evidence actually concerns whether any liability exists, not merely its amount.

Missing proof/next question: Which issue is already established, and which remaining facts concern only quantification?

H09 — Claimant’s proof remains weak

Facts: The factual presumption does not apply. The claimant is asked to identify evidence, declines further evidence and relies on a unilateral statement that does not establish a constitutive fact.

Claims: C025–C029, C065, C068.

Conditional result: The claim can be rejected for failure of proof. Default is not a substitute for the missing legal element.

Adverse branch: A legal presumption or properly ordered burden redistribution may change who must prove the disputed fact.

Missing proof/next question: What burden allocation was actually ordered, and what evidence supports each constitutive element?

H10 — Relief exceeds the claim

Facts: The petition requests a specified principal claim; the judgment adds a different substantive obligation not pleaded, citing only default.

Claims: C055–C057.

Conditional result: Article 492’s limits remain relevant despite default.

Adverse branch: Legal interest, monetary correction, litigation-cost consequences or qualifying continuing instalments may be included by arts. 322–323 and are not automatically excess relief.

Missing proof/next question: Is the disputed addition a new substantive claim or a legally implicit component of the requested relief?

H11 — Partial versus final judgment

Facts: One independently separable monetary component is ready for decision; another needs evidence.

Claims: C039–C042, C059–C061.

Conditional result: Article 356 may permit partial merits adjudication while the rest continues. The partial decision’s challenge and enforcement treatment differ from a judgment ending the entire cognitive phase.

Adverse branch: The components may be interdependent, preventing isolated resolution.

Missing proof/next question: Can the ready component be decided without prejudging the unresolved component?

H12 — Reasons missing

Facts: The judgment says only, “The defendant defaulted, so the claim is granted,” without explaining exceptions, legal entitlement or the amount.

Claims: C043–C050, C066–C067.

Conditional result: The art. 489 reasoning requirements are implicated.

Adverse branch: The complete decision, read as a whole, may contain reasons elsewhere; brevity is not automatically absence of reasons.

Missing proof/next question: Which material issues or potentially outcome-changing arguments did the complete decision fail to address?

Workflow count: 12.

10. Three conditional calculations

These are arithmetic demonstrations, not actual deadlines or awards. No local calendar, holiday, system closure or court order was checked.

T01 — Ordinary answer period after an unsuccessful hearing

Stipulations: A valid common-procedure case; one defendant; no special or doubled period; the relevant unsuccessful hearing occurs Monday, August 3, 2026; art. 335(I) supplies the trigger; no holiday, closure or suspension.

• Day 0, excluded: August 3.
• August 4–7: business days 1–4.
• August 10–14: days 5–9.
• August 17–21: days 10–14.
• August 24: day 15.

15 business days after August 3, 2026 = Monday, August 24, 2026

If August 11 is instead an applicable court closure, with all other assumptions unchanged:

15th business day = Tuesday, August 25, 2026

The exact last filing instant, electronic rule and actual hearing trigger remain held. This calculation does not establish default in any case. C070, C074.

Source: CPC arts. 219, 224 and 335(I), https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm. Planalto+1

T02 — Five-day adjustment request after saneamento

Stipulations: Valid intimation of the art. 357 decision on Monday, August 3, 2026; ordinary counting; no holiday or closure.

• Day 0: August 3.
• August 4: day 1.
• August 5: day 2.
• August 6: day 3.
• August 7: day 4.
• August 10: day 5.

Five business days = Tuesday August 4 through Monday August 10, 2026, excluding the weekend

If August 7 is an applicable closure, the fifth business day becomes Tuesday, August 11.

This is the art. 357 §1 clarification/adjustment window, not a general appeal period and not the date of merits coisa julgada. C071, C074.

Source: CPC arts. 219, 224, 357 §1, same URL. Planalto+1

T03 — Separable partial merits component

Fictional inputs:

• Pleaded principal components: R$15,000.00.
• Component A: R$9,000.00, stipulated to be legally supported, separable and ready under arts. 355–356.
• Component B: R$6,000.00, requiring further proof.
• No interest, correction, costs, penalty or later instalment is included.

Calculation:

R$15,000.00 − R$9,000.00 = R$6,000.00 still undecided

Reconciliation:

R$9,000.00 decided component + R$6,000.00 undecided component = R$15,000.00 pleaded principal

The R$6,000 is not thereby owed, forgiven or rejected. If A and B cannot be separated, the partial-judgment assumption fails. Values are exact to two decimal places; no rounding is required. C072.

Source: CPC arts. 356 and 492, same URL. Planalto+1

11. Exact P01 D15 crosswalk

Preserved literal record

Original coordinator status remains explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.

Narrow PASS-19 dispositions

Crosswalk count: nine logical items and nine physical data rows—one preserved record plus eight dispositions.

12. Source register

Access metadata for every row: October 26, 2026 PDT / October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact opening clocks unknown. All fresh reads are PASS-19 access, not retroactive certifications of earlier reports. Failed routes are separately classified.

Source-register count: 12 rows: four statutory bodies, one STF súmula entry, one official STJ overview, four published STJ judgment PDFs, and two failed/substantively unread routes. S001 contains two official representations of one statute; row count is not a URL count.

13. Atomic claim/evidence register

All claim IDs below are C_BR-P19-Cxxx. S001 pinpoints refer to the full CPC URLs in the source register; S002 to the full CDC URL. These references identify source, actor, predicate and consequence without adopting any private case outcome.

Atomic claim count: 77.

14. Granular core coverage

Core-coverage count: 90.

15. Separately deferred families

Deferred-family count: 24.

16. All 27 inherited states and Distrito Federal

The jurisdiction names are inherited from the preserved P01 inventory. No fresh geographical certification or API was used. Federal judgments discussing a state case do not certify that state’s current local rules.

Territorial count: 27; no state or DF branch is cleared.

17. Evidence-backed opportunities

No site, tool, complaint, filing or publication was created.

18. Reconciliation and researcher self-check

Residual priorities: the actual procedural route and answer trigger; valid service and representation; all filed defenses and evidence; any art.345 exception; the burden-allocation order; timeliness and necessity of proposed counter-evidence; the requested relief and lawful monetary components; the full judgment and its finality; and the competent court’s calendar, forms and current procedural implementation.

Final disposition: PASS-19 establishes the narrow federal distinction between default status, conditional factual presumptions, remaining participation and evidence rights, early or partial merits judgment, reasoned adjudication, quantified relief and finality. It does not establish that any actual debt is proved, any defendant is validly in default, any requested amount is owed, any judgment is valid or final, or any reopening, appeal or enforcement remedy is available.

END C_BR PASS-19