Opinion ID: 1841264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the interplay of possession, the possessory action, and acquisitive prescription

Text: Notwithstanding the above, the state argues that the constitutional prohibition against the state's losing its lands (either public or private, A. Yiannopoulous, 2 La. Civ.Law Treatise § 34, 95 et seq. (1980)) through acquisitive prescription, prevents a possessor from having the requisite outset intent to possess state property and always bars a possessory action against the state, irrespective of the public or private nature of the property. The question thus becomes whether possession of land is so inextricably tied to the land's being subject to acquisitive prescription (upon a showing of adverse possession), that the legal inability to so acquire the property bars the kind of possession (i.e., with the intent to possess as owner) which is necessary to trigger the right to maintain a possessory action after a year of undisturbed possession. We find that the inability to acquire private property belonging to the state by acquisitive prescription does not bar a possessory action against the state. Admittedly, the intent to possess in a possessory action has been found to be similar in nature to that required of a person seeking to acquire property by prescription. City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Canal, Inc., 412 So.2d 975 (La. 1982); Norton v. Addie, 337 So.2d 432 (La. 1976); Liner v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, 319 So.2d 766 (La. 1975); Note, 49 Tul.Law Review 1173 (1975). Admittedly, too, the possessory action is oftentimes but the skirmishing ground for the impending contest as to ownership. Writ System in Real Actions, 22 Tul.Law Review 459 at 467 (1948). However, the fact that one action may in the usual course precede another does not mean that availability of the latter is a sine qua non of the former. While the precept tantum praescriptum quantum possessum (It is clear that I cannot acquire by prescription what I have not possessed. G. BaudryLacantinerie & Albert Tissier, 5 Civil Law Translations 298, 158 (4th Edition, 1924)) is indisputable, the reverse (I cannot possess what I cannot acquire by prescription) is not necessarily true. It depends on the reason that the property is not subject to being acquired by prescription. On the one hand, if the state land cannot be acquired by prescription because it is inalienable, the land clearly cannot be the object of a possessory action since alienability (the state of being in commerce) is a prerequisite for such an action. This is exactly what prohibits the bringing of a possessory action when the object of that action is public land, which is inalienable. However if the state land cannot be acquired by prescription because of some reason other than its inalienability, then the principles of possession are not offended by the prohibition against acquisitive prescription. As stated earlier, land which the state owns in its private capacity is alienable in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and so is in commerce. What bars the prescriptive acquisition of land which the state owns in its private capacity is not the nature of the property, for the property is in commerce and thus alienable; but rather a constitutional prohibition expressly designed to prohibit the loss of state lands. Allowing a possessory action is not inimical to the public policy manifested through the constitutional prohibition because a private litigant cannot acquire ownership through the possessory action, nor will the state thus lose title to its lands should a litigant succeed against the state in a possessory action. The availability of a possessory action then depends not upon whether the given property is subject to being acquired by adverse possession and prescription, but upon whether the property is of the sort which can be freely disposed of by individuals, by other private persons, or by the state in its capacity as a private person. This is akin to the French distinction that corporeal immovables can be objects of a possessory action if they are in commerce, irrespective of ownership. Therefore our civilian tradition as derived from the French does not foreclose an outset possessory action against the state. It is only because of the constitutional prohibition against losing state lands by prescription, and our jurisprudence to the effect that the possession in a possessory action is of a kind similar to that required for acquisitive prescription that the argument is made that a possessory action is foreclosed at the outset against the state. The argument is not persuasive for the reasons which we will discuss in the next section of this opinion, and considering our resolution which makes the possessory action available without compromising the constitutional proscription to the running of prescription against the state. If the land in dispute is public property which is not alienable (such as navigable waterbodies or dedicated public streets, for example), private individuals may not succeed in a possessory action against the state. On the other hand if the land in dispute is private in nature, subject perhaps to conflicting claims by private persons and/or the state in its private capacity, the constitutional prohibition against the state's losing lands by prescription does not preclude the availability of the possessory action against the state, with its focus simply upon whether or not the plaintiff has held himself out as owner for over a year. Furthermore, referring to land as public at the outset of a possessory action in order to argue that it is inalienable, and may not be acquired by prescription, and thus cannot be the object of a possessory action, presupposes a state of affairs which may well not be the case. It presupposes that the property in question is owned by the state. Only state lands may not be lost by prescription. Therefore, in order for the constitutional prohibition against losing lands by prescription to apply, there must be proof that the land in question is indeed state land. State of La. Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of State Lands v. Talley, 413 So.2d 201 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982). Such proof of ownership is foreign to the limited issues in a possessory action. A party bringing a possessory action need not allege or prove that the property is not owned by the defendant, nor that he has title to the land; nor must the Court address the matter of ownership in order to rule in a possessory action. The state, of course, will defeat the possessory action if they can show that the disputed property is public, be it by nature or by use. La.C.C. arts. 450 and 455. The private litigant plaintiff otherwise entitled will succeed in the possessory action if the disputed property is shown to be private in nature, irrespective of whether the owner is ultimately found to be a private person or the state in its private capacity. La.C.C. art. 453. The possibility that in a later instituted petitory action or some other action (concursus for instance) the state may prove ownership of the property (and, as a consequence, the property's imprescriptible nature), is not offended by the outset availability of the possessory action in which ownership of the property is not at issue. Additionally, the fact that it is later determined that the property may not be acquired by prescription (should it ultimately be shown that the state owns it) does not mean that the possessor did not intend to possess as owner. [14] There may be, as here, a legitimate dispute over the ownership of the property. See Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Jones, 233 La. 915, 98 So.2d 236 (1957). In this case, for instance, referring to the land in dispute as state land presupposes a determination not yet adjudicated, that the land in dispute is not accretion, as the plaintiffs suggest, but swamp overfill resting on the bed of a once navigable river. Such a determination will more properly be made in a petitory, or perhaps some other, action.