Article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution.” Kenedy Mem’l Found, v. Mauro, 921 S.W.2d 278, 282 (TexA ay, 971 S.W.2d 145, 149 (TexApp.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (action for inverse condemnation is exception to doctrine of sovereign immunity). In contrast, a trespass to try title action against the State requires legislative consent. State v. Lain, 162 Tex. 549, 552, 349 S.W.2d 579, 582 (1961) (“When in this state the sovereign is made a party defendant to a suit for land, without legislative consent, its plea to the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity should be sustained in limine”). Texas courts have repeatedly held that a trespass to try title action is the proper method of adjudicating rival claims to real property. Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 264 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>); Rogers v. Ricane Enters., 884 S.W.2d 763, 768
holding that the legal title holders to real property held it in constructive trust for the equitable title holder who was entitled to the real property based on an earlier contract holding that claimant could recover all of his attorneys fees because declaratoryjudgment claim in boundary dispute was based on the same facts as his claims for adverse possession trespass and trespass to try title holding that dyfs was not required to try the title 9 action to conclusion before filing a title 30 action for the termination of parental rights holding that election of remedies did not apply because filing a trespass to try title action by the mortgageetrusteedeed grantee was not inconsistent with its successful settlement of claim against the title insurer holding that trespass to try title is the method for determining title to  real property