Q: adverse possession when the owner takes back land in the same manner as the adverse possessor.

A: Adverse possession is a defense. It is not a claim. I have used it before by flipping claims and defenses using techniques like a petition to quiet title or a complaint for declaratory judgment, but it is generally a defense that gets asserted to block a summary dispossession. In other words, it almost certainly is not merely squatting and claiming. For the defense to work, the possessor must: Possess Openly Adversely Continuously and Hostilely for a period of years longer than some statute of limitations, which is most often 21 years, but I recall as being 15 years in DC. If you don’t have any part of that, you are nothing but a squatter. The title owner cannot dispossess you without risking a claim of wrongful eviction, but if they seek and obtain a judgment to evict, they are merely retaking their land from a squatter. There was no adverse possession. The term is gravely misunderstood by opportunistic squatters.

A: You have not asked a question. As an academic matter, an owner who acquired Blackacre, or a portion thereof, from an adjacent owner could, in turn, lose the same land back to the original owner via adverse possession. It is fact specific, and will likely require a long look back in time, marshalling evidence of past owners, and tenants in each title chain.

The most important aspect of the claim, in my opinion, is the "under color of title" requirement. This often defeats a mere squatter that doesn't act like an owner, ie, by paying taxes, maintenance and insurance costs. This element often bleeds into the failure to fulfill the "open and obvious" requirement. If the true owner doesn't know, or couldn't reasonably know, then no grant of possession. Adverse possessors can't win ownership by hiding.