Moldova State University

Law Faculty

Individual Work
The right of the acquirer in good faith to
movable property art 527, of the
Civil Code

Done by: 1804 Group’s Student

Crețu Constantin
Verified by: Professor
Cazac Octavian

Chișinău 2019
 Article 527. (1) The good faith acquirer acquires the right of ownership over the
movable good by entering in a possession and if the person who disposed of the good was not his
owner, had no powers to dispose of the good or the legal document of disposition was inefficient
on another basis. There is no good – belief when the acquirer knew or should have known that
the one from whom he acquired the good was not his owner, had no powers to dispose of the
good or the legal act of disposition was incompetent on another basis. The good faith must
survive until the moment of entering into possession including.

(2) The acquirer of good faith does not acquire the right of property under par. (1) in case
the property is stolen, lost or otherwise deriving from the possession of the owner contrary to his
will or interest the lessor obtained it free of charge. This rule does not apply in the case of the
acqusition of money, securities in the bearer or goods abroad at aucion.

(3) The provisions of this article does not apply:

a) Movable property on which the property right is acquired according to the law, by
registring in a public registry.

b) Movable cultural assets.

c) If the act under which the acquiere acquired the good is null or cancellable.

(4) The provisions of this article shall also apply in cases where the law allows us to
acquire by certain means property rights limited to movable property.

Art. 527 have the follwing purpose: defending the interests of the good faith acquirers.
The expression movable property, that of furniture or movable effects include generally every
thing which is deemed to be a movable according to the rules above set forth.This rule will be
applicable only in cases where the acquirer is in good faith, respectively will not be applicable in
cases where the acquirer is in bad faith. The same rule applies only to movable property. The
general rule from this article is: the acquirer of good faith acquires the right of ownership over
the movable property and if the person who disposed of the property was not his owner. For
example, the acquirer acquired a good from the lessor, who was not entitled to alienate the leased
asset. The acquirer will become the owner of the property sold by the lessor only if he does not
know and could not know that the lessor is not the owner of the good and therefore is not entitled
to dispose of the good. The good faith of the acquirer is assumed, the opposite will be proved by
the one who invokes it. The good or bad faith of the acquirer will be determined depending on
whether he knew or did not know, should have known or should not have known, that the
alienating the good is not its owner. Bad faith cannot be covered by an act either. For example,
the bad faith cannot be covered by the fact that the acquirer acquired the good from a tender
organized by the court to execute a court decision, if the acquirer knew that the alienating the
good is not the owner of the good (at auction the true owner communicated to the acquirer that
the good is his). It is important that good faith must survive until the moment of possession. The
relationship between our Civil Code and International Conventions like Cape Town Convention
on International Interests in Mobile Equipment is obvious with the following article “ownership
of the cultural object after return shall be governed by that law of the requesting Member State”
that means buyer lessee of an asset encumbered with an international interest is regulated
without according any relevance to the good faith criterion.

If the rule is that the acquirer of good faith acquires the right of ownership over the
movable good and if the person who disposed of the good was not his owner,then the exception
from this rule is provided in par. 2 according to which the acquirer of good faith does not acquire
the right of ownership over the movable property if the good is stolen, lost or otherwise left out
of the possession of the owner contrary to his will or the acquirer he got it for free. Therefore, the
acquirer of good faith will not acquire the property right over the movable property if the good
has come out of the owner's possession contrary to his will (theft, loss, otherwise). Likewise, he
will not become the owner of the movable property if he acquired it for free. However, the
acquirer of good faith will acquire the property right over the money, the securities give value to
the holder and the goods acquired at auction even if these goods have come out of the possession
of the owner contrary to his will. The money and securities in the bearer will not be able to be
claimed from the possessor of good faith in either case, which means that the acquirer of good
faith in all cases (we consider those cases when the alienator is not the owner of these goods)
will become the owner of the money and securities of the holder.

Exist two situation covered. The rule therefore may apply to the following situations:
On the one hand, there are situations where A lost his asset or it was stolen from him or A
entrusted the asset to B based on a contract (deposition, renting, pledge ), and B, who “acquired”
transfers the goods to C. On the other hand, there are situations where there has been a contract
between A and B, which could, in principle, operate as a basis for a transfer of ownership, but
did not for some reason, as may be: the contract A – B was invalid from the beginning or has
been avoided with retroactive effect, with the avoidance taking place either before the transfer to
C or after such transfer or the contract A–B has been for a specific asset, but the wrong asset has
been delivered to B, who transfers it to C. One of the classical ways of justifying good faith
acquisition is to stress the legitimising function of possession, assuming that the acquirer can
conclude from the seller’s possession that the seller has a right of ownership (“publicity
approach” in the classical sense). Such an automatic conclusion may, however, be unrealistic
nowadays.

In the folowing , by mean of jurisprudence I will show how the good faith acquisition is
regulated by the legislation.

In the civil case at the request of the court of Natalia Colesnic and Colesnic Nicolae
against Croitoru Igor, accessory interveners Municipal Enterprise "The Association of Markets
in the Balti municipality" regarding the recognition of the right of acquiring good faith and the
right of ownership over the movable booth, from 6 november 2014, The Supreme Court of
Justice concluded it was proved that the litigation quota was handed over by Croitoru Igor in the
property of the Colesnic spouses, fact confirmed by the testimonies of witnesses heard during the
court hearings and the fact that Tailor Igor received the agreed price for this box.

At the same time, it indicates that the first court at the issuance of the just judgment held
that by the sale-purchase contract of February 3, 2006, the parties expressed their will, namely,
the Croitoru Igor received the value of the good sold, and the Colesnic husbands entered
possession of it, using it in good faith so, in this case we can see how the law protect the good
faith acquirers.

Also a case of acquiring the property right under the name of good faith acquirer is when
someone purchase a car from aboard and goes to registrate his vehicle in the Registry for
registration of the means of transport and his request is denied. In such cases, the buyer in good
faith may realize his property right, which justifies the requirement to arrange registration of the
applicant's car, a condition without which the good cannot be exploited. At the same time,
according to point 22 of Annex no. 2 regarding the Rules of registration of the means of
transport, of the Government Decision of the Republic of Moldova no. 1047 of 08.11.99, the
means of transport with the modified identification numbers can be registered only in case of
recognition by the court of the person using a vehicle with the modified identification numbers
as a good faith buye. It is argued quite often that there is a practical or economic need of
protecting commerce, as it would be too burdensome, costly and insecure if each acquirer was
forced to undertake detailed investigations as to the asset’s origin. Not having a good faith
acquisition rule would create considerable legal uncertainty, even in numerous cases where the
transferor was, in fact, entitled to transfer ownership. Thus, good faith acquisition would also
serve the aim of promoting legal certainty. The arguments put forward in favour of the owner’s
protection and against good faith acquisition center on the important function of the legal
concept of ownership in our legal, economic and social systems. Private Ownership is protected
on the level of constitutional law, it is the basis of our economic system, it contributes to the
efficiency of our markets. In the light of the importance of the concept of ownership, a loss of
ownership or, more precisely, – as in the case of good faith acquisition – an expropriation of
owner A in favour of C needs a solid justification.

The solutions: A could be granted a right to buy back the goods from C for the price C
had to pay to B –even if it was zero. Thus, in donation cases, A could claim recovery of “his”
asset for nothing (except compensation for expenses). This would, of course, solve the “for
value” problem in an elegant way, the requirement would be superfluous. The right to buy back
causes problems on other levels, there are no good reasons why C’s estate not having paid
anything for the asset should be entitled to keep the movable while A is finally expropriated.
Under German law, the former owner has the right to claim back the asset based on
unjustified enrichment. Such a rule should not be adopted either. It has a rather singular status in
Europe and is even questioned by a number of German scholars. It would also be doubtful
whether such a rule would fit to the general concept of unjustified enrichment within the ECC.
Last but not least, the rule would place the risk of C’s insolvency on A, which is not considered
to be an adequate result.