In a controversy affecting real estate, possession of part shall not be construed as possession of the whole when an actual adverse possession can be proved.
§ 8.01-145.When possession of part not possession of whole.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 14. Ejectment · Last amended 1977 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-145 provides that in a real estate dispute, possessing part of a tract does not count as possessing the whole tract whenever the opposing party can prove actual adverse possession of the remainder.
Full Text of § 8.01-145
Plain-English Summary
Section 8.01-145 limits how far possession of a portion of land can be stretched. In an ordinary case, courts sometimes treat possession of part of a tract as representative of possession of the whole. This statute cuts off that presumption in a defined circumstance.
When actual adverse possession of the rest of the tract can be proved, possession of part no longer stands in for possession of the whole. The party asserting rights based on partial possession cannot rely on that partial foothold to claim the entire parcel once someone else’s actual adverse possession of the remainder is established.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does holding part of a property give someone a claim to the whole property?
Not when actual adverse possession of the rest can be proved. Section 8.01-145 says possession of part will not be construed as possession of the whole in that situation.
What does “actual adverse possession” mean in this context?
It refers to someone else’s genuine, adverse occupation of the remaining portion of the property — occupation the statute treats as breaking the link between possessing part of a tract and being deemed to possess all of it.
Why does this rule matter in an ejectment or title dispute?
Because claims to real estate often depend on possession as evidence of a right to the property, and this section prevents a party from using a small foothold on part of a tract to bootstrap a claim to land held adversely by someone else.
How does this section relate to the ouster requirement for cotenants?
Both sections deal with how possession is measured. Section 8.01-141 requires a cotenant-plaintiff to prove an ouster before recovering against a fellow cotenant, while Section 8.01-145 limits how possession of part of a tract can be used to claim the whole when someone else adversely possesses the rest.
Who has to prove the actual adverse possession that triggers this rule?
The party relying on the limitation must prove the actual adverse possession of the remainder; the statute applies only “when an actual adverse possession can be proved.”
Amendment History
Code 1950, § 8-815; 1977, c. 617.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: possession of part not whole virginiaadverse possession real property virginiapartial possession real estate dispute virginiaconstructive possession limits virginia law