Abstract
This scientific article is devoted to the study of the legal significance of such a category of legal status of the purchaser of another's thing, as its good faith. The essence of this phenomenon has been studied, it has been established that the criterion of good faith attaches significant importance to the claims of the participants of these relations for the acquisition or preservation of private property rights. The paper emphasizes that, in addition to the importance of good conscience at the time of possession of another's thing, which gives legal certainty the possibility of registration of the title and is part of the actual composition for the acquisition of property or the right of ancient possession, bona fides also characterizes the behavior of the occupier. In this case, good conscience only has some legal consequences when it is opposed to subjective law. Under such conditions, it acquires direct legal significance, including as a condition for the acquisition and protection of rights. Good faith possession of another's property is an internal indicator of the subject's awareness of a certain property status. This sense, the article assesses this status from the standpoint of the scientific concept of the visibility of law. According to this theory, prescription is also considered as a consequence of the appearance of law, however, because it arises and lasts against the will of the parties and despite their awareness of this fact. Therefore, bona fide continuous and open possession of property as one's own, during the acquisition period, was most significantly associated with the appearance of property. Therefore, the concept of good faith, in the sense of personal perception of real values, is closely related to the principle of protection of the appearance of law, as it is aimed at understanding it by third parties. The paper notes certain differences in the application of the theory of the appearance of the right in the acquisition of property by a bona fide purchaser from an unauthorized alienator and the acquisitive prescription. It is emphasized that such a mechanism must be used in presuming the attitude to the thing as its own, by the holder of movable property. But there should be exceptions to the rule, in particular, if the owner has grounds for vindication of the thing.