With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". eighteen-year period of possession, the evidence .is sufficient to establish title to the Disputed Property in the Estrada parties under the twenty-five-year statute. See Duke, 128 S.W.2d at 485 (adverse possession may be established by party claiming adversely and paying taxes on’.land, when claim of title is made in tangible form calculated to bring notice to those adversely affected by it); Sterling, 456 S.W.2d at 534-35. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the trial court’s findings and conclusions that the Estrada parties did not establish their adverse possession claim are supported by legally insufficient evidence and that the evidence affirmatively establishes the Estrada parties’ adverse possession claim. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 816, 821 (<HOLDING>); see also Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code § 16.026;

A: recognizing the court must grant a noevidence motion if the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact
B: holding unchallenged findings of fact are binding unless contrary is established as matter of law or there is no evidence to support finding
C: holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established
D: holding that we must sustain legal sufficiency or noevidence challenge if record shows that evidence conclusively establishes opposite of vital fact and matter is established as matter of law if reasonable people could not differ as to conclusion to be drawn from evidence
D.