According to the provisions of Article 784 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, the private instrument signed by the parties and two witnesses is included in the exhaustive list of executive titles, provided that the obligations established in this document are certain, liquid and enforceable.
The electronic environment is gradually replacing the instrument as the information support and origin of credit titles, however, one of the obstacles to electronic contracts being considered extrajudicial executive titles was precisely the absence of the formal requirement of the signature of two witnesses.
In this sense, it was discussed that for contracts concluded in digital format, the competent authority that certifies the signatures of the parties would act as such witnesses, conferring authenticity and veracity to the document.
As stated in the aforementioned decision, a wide variety of electronic contracts are currently being concluded and this is a relevant economic and social reality that must be considered, since neither the Brazilian Civil Code nor the Code of Civil Procedure are fully permeable to the current methods of concluding contracts.
Furthermore, although the STJ decision is not binding, it indicates a significant change in the previous understanding, which used to require prior judicial knowledge proceedings to recognize the enforceability of the contract.
In short, as long as the minimum requirements of authenticity and security are met, the existence and soundness of the contract, until then only corroborated by the signatures of two witnesses, can exceptionally be recognized by other means, that is, the absence of witnesses alone should not exclude the enforceability of electronic contracts, which can now be considered extrajudicial executive titles.
