With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". transferred Woodbridge to Friendship in 2000, Friendship continued to operate Woodbridge as a public school. We agree with Friendship and the trial court. This case is controlled by the principle that municipal property devoted to a public use may not be acquired by adverse possession and the doctrine of nullum tempus occurit regi (“no time runs against the sovereign”) is directly applicable. During the time the District owned the Woodbridge property, it held title in its governmental capacity and operated it as a public school. Thus, the Woodbridge property was dedicated to a public use and could not have been acquired by private landowners by prescription. Town Comm’rs of Centreville, supra, 87 A.2d at 601; see also Lysicki v. Montour Sch. Dist., 701 A.2d 630 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1997) (<HOLDING>). There is no hint in this record that the

A: recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts
B: holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement
C: holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth
D: holding no private landowner can adversely possess property of the school district because school districts are agents of the commonwealth and are therefore immune from the running of time against them
D.