The main point of the problem is accurately if it is or not possible, in the cited case, the independent execution of the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute for regimen of RPV, while the main value follows the order of the precatrio. Let us start to analyze the devices and teses regarding the substance in quarrel. 2 the IMPOSSIBILITY OF the FRACIONAMENTO OF the EXECUTION AGAINST the PUBLIC FARM 8 of article 100 of the Federal Constitution, that is one of the articles that discipline the execution against the Public Farm, prohibition, express, the fracionamento or value in addition of the execution for ends of act of receiving of Solicitation of Small Value RPV, let us see: The expedition of complementary or suplemental precatrios of paid value is forbidden, as well as the fracionamento, value distribution or in addition of the execution for ends of framing of parcel of the total what it makes use 3 of this article. Pena Nieto, offer their opinions as well. For more information see this site: Gary Kelly. Grifei. With bedding in the cited device, as well as understanding that legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute and the main value they form an only value, the majority of the native courts, including the Court of Justice of Rondnia, comes hindering the independent execution legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute them against the Public Farm. This chain understands and defends that, as cited device, is not possible the individualizao of each creditor, in order to adjust it the limit of the established RPV, in rule, for interpolated proposition I of art. 87 of the ADCT, so that, on the basis of 3 of art. 100 of the Constitution, either excused the expedition of precatrio. To admit the individualizao of credit is to admit the fracionamento of the obligation of the State front to the particular one aiming at to escape of the rite of the precatrios, what express it is forbidden by the Federal Constitution, of 1988.