Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Trust Company, 212 S.W.3d 893, 911 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). In Bell, a landowner filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking title to property upon which the State had built a highway. The State claimed title to the property by a lost deed and adverse possession. Id. This Court held that Bell’s suit was, in effect, a trespass to try title action against the state. Id. at 294. The landowner in Bell, however, did not seek compensation for an inverse condemnation, but instead sought title to the land. Id. Thus, our court’s holding in that case is distinguishable. In Texas Southern, a bank sued the university for inverse condemnation after the university refused to pay for equipment provided to it under a lease/purchase agreement. 212 S.W.3d at 898-99. Our court . Finally, the defendants respond that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that allegations that states lease and actions that resulted in taking of oil and gas were sufficient to state claim for inverse condemnation
B. holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
C. recognizing that plaintiff must have vested legal right of access and not merely historical permissive use to have actionable inverse condemnation claim
D. recognizing that publicly targeting a property for condemnation resulting in economic damage to the owner generally does not give rise to an inverse condemnation cause of action unless there is some direct restriction on use of the property
E. holding that inverse condemnation claim survived jurisdictional plea where foundation alleged that state mineral leases encroached on foundations property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.