Bava Metzia 39B

ואפילו הגדיל.

And even if one continues to occupy the field after the minor reached majority, he does not assume presumptive ownership, as perhaps the minor was unaware that he is the field’s owner.

ולא אמרן אלא באחי דאבא, אבל באחי דאמא לית לן בה. ואחי דאבא נמי לא אמרן אלא בארעתא, אבל בבתי לית לן בה. ובארעתא נמי לא אמרן אלא דלא עביד עיטדא, אבל עביד עיטדא ⁠– קלא אית לה.

The Talmud comments: And we said only in the case of paternal brothers that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, as they are potential heirs. But in the case of maternal brothers we have no problem with it, as they are not potential heirs. And in the case of paternal brothers, we said that the court does not authorize a relative only with regard to land. But in the case of houses we have no problem with it, as there are neighbors who can testify that the house does not belong to those brothers. And with regard to land too, we said that it is only in a case where the minor’s father did not draft a document of division of the property that the court does not authorize a relative. But in a case where the minor’s father drafted a document of division, it generates publicity, and everyone knows which portion belongs to each of the brothers.

ולא היא ⁠– לא שנא אחי דאבא ולא שנא אחי דאמא, לא שנא ארעתא ולא שנא בתי, ולא שנא עביד עיטדא לא שנא לא עביד עיטדא ⁠– לא מחתינן.

The Talmud concludes: But this is not so, as there is no difference whether they are paternal brothers and there is no difference whether they are maternal brothers; it is no different whether it is land, and it is no different whether it is houses; and it is no different whether he drafted a document of division, and it is no different whether he did not draft a document of division. We do not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, to avoid that relative being regarded as the owner of the property.