Does the non-intervention of the public prosecutor's office in a declaratory action of nullity of a loan agreement in the name of an absolutely incapacitated person give rise to procedural nullity

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the non-intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office in declaratory actions of nullity of loan agreements entered into in the name of individuals deemed legally incapable reveals the relevance and complexity of the issue, justifying its in-depth analysis in this research. The discussion assumes particular importance given the potential procedural effects arising from this omission, notably regarding the allegation of procedural nullity, capable of compromising the stability and effectiveness of judicial protection, even if the final ruling is favorable to the incapacitated individual. The debate falls within the scope of legal hermeneutics and requires a systematic interpretation of substantive and procedural law norms, especially those relating to civil incapacity, the validity of legal transactions, and the regime of procedural nullities. In this context, the analysis of Articles 178 and 279 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands out, as they govern the mandatory intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office and condition the declaration of nullity on the demonstration of concrete prejudice to the interests of the incapacitated individual. Furthermore, the research examines the nullity of a loan agreement signed without judicial authorization, in light of the Civil Code and applicable administrative regulations, highlighting the protective nature of the legal system.