What is the test for adverse possession of land?

Plaintiffs argue that both parties paid taxes according to the descriptions in their respective deeds and that to claim ownership by adverse possession, defendants must prove payment of taxes on the disputed area.

In Carr v. Schomberg, 104 Cal.App.2d 850, 860, 232 P.2d 597, 602, the court said:

'Once it is found that the parties agreed upon a boundary, the payment of taxes according to deed descriptions amounts to payment of taxes on the area up to the agreed-upon boundary. The proper rule was stated as follows in Price v. De Reyes, 161 Cal. 484, 489, 119 P. 893, 895: 'It is conceded that both parties paid taxes each year assessed according to the descriptions in the respective deeds. As we have seen, a division line thus established 'attaches itself to the deeds of the respective parties,' and defines the lands described in each deed, so that the one in the possession of the overlap holds the title thereto by the same tenure as he holds the lands technically embraced in the description. (Citing cases.) The consequence is that under such circumstances the payment of taxes assessed in this manner is a payment on the land in the possession of the parties. Furthermore, the natural inference[144 Cal.App.2d 62] would be that the assessor put the value on the land and improvements of each party as disclosed by the visible possession, rather than that he ascertained the true line by a careful survey and assessed to one a part of the possession of the other.''