Opinion ID: 1841264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: distinction between public and private property inapplicable

Text: Having determined that the purpose of the possessory action is to protect the accrual of acquisitive prescription by establishing the right to possess, we may now consider whether that action is available against the State. The plaintiff and amicus curiae are correct in their assertion that French doctrinal authorities uniformly recognize that a possessory action may lie against private property of the state, though not against public property. Although this differentiation between public and private property of the State is appropriate in France, the same is not true in Louisiana. The reasons for this become apparent when one compares French statutory law with the Louisiana Constitution. The Louisiana Civil Code is similar to that of France in that certain properties are designated as public property of the state. C.C. art. 450. Perhaps the most important characteristic of public property is its inalienability. The reason property held by the state as custodian for the public was defined by law and declared inalienable was to protect against private encroachment or governmental inefficiency as regards property held by the state for the public's benefit. M. Planiol, supra, § 3068. Property which is inalienable is considered to be out of commerce, and the characteristic of imprescriptibility of public property in France flowed from that of inalienability, for Art. 2226 of the French Civil Code provides that prescription cannot run against property which is out of commerce: Art. 2226. On ne peut prescrire le domaine des choses qui ne sont point dans le commerce. [3] Other than the limitation that prescription cannot run against property which is inalienable, or out of commerce, the French Civil Code provides that prescription applies to the state as it does to any individual: Art. 2227. L'État, les établissements publics et les communes sont soumis aux memes prescriptions que les particuliers, et peuvent également les opposer. [4] In France, therefore, public property is imprescriptible and cannot be the object of a possessory action only because prescription cannot run against things out of commerce. See, Aubry & Rau, supra, § 185. Private property of the state, however, is subject to acquisitive prescription and thus may be the object of possessory action. The same simply is not true in Louisiana. The position of the French authorities is based upon a statutory scheme which is diametrically opposed to that of Louisiana. In contrast to the French Civil Code which states that prescription runs against the State as to everything except inalienable property, the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the application of prescription against the State: Prescription shall not run against the state in any civil matter unless otherwise provided in this constitution or expressly by law. La. Const. art. 12, § 13 (1974). Thus, neither public nor private property of the State of Louisiana may be acquired through prescription. It follows, then, that since the purpose of the possessory action is to protect the possessor's presumption of ownership as acquisitive prescription accrues, the action must be unavailable where property of the state is its object. Since state property can never be acquired prescriptively, it would be a useless exercise first to give judicial recognition to a plaintiff's right to possess against the state and then later tell him that his possession will never be sufficient to acquire ownership. Finally, it is contended that the prohibition of the possessory action against the State is to sanction the wrongful interference by the State of one's peaceful possession of his property. This assertion overlooks the other remedies at law available to an owner to protect the peaceful possession of his property whether disturbed by the State or any other person. More importantly, it misconceives the true objective of the possessory action; namely, to protect one good faith possession of property as prescription accrues while at the same time retaining the ownership of all the fruits produced therefrom. C.C. Art. 551. The strong public policy of the state is to protect the wealth of its lands and minerals, all of which reside in the people of this State. This policy would not be served by creating a distinction between public things and private things and permitting prescription against the State depending upon the nature of the State's ownership. The better policy is to protect all state lands from acquisition through prescription however owned and all as expressed in the constitutional article on which this opinion is premised. Louisiana Constitutional Art. 12, § 13 (1974). Accordingly, one does not have a cause of action to maintain a possessory action against the State because one can never acquire ownership of State lands simply through possession.