In a possessory action against the owner of a mineral right subject to the prescription of nonuse, one possessing land as owner under a title which on its face discloses the mineral right in question must allege and prove that he has possessed the surface of the land as owner quietly and without interruption for more than one year prior to the date the action is brought and that for a period of at least ten years before the year preceding the date on which the action is brought the mineral right was not used or exercised according to its nature. The fact that prescription accruing against the mineral right in question may have been suspended or may have been interrupted for some cause other than use is irrelevant to the possessory action and can be utilized by the defendant only as a basis for claiming ownership of the disputed rights in a petitory action.
Art. 3667.When Proof of Nonuse Required In Possessory Action Against Owner of Mineral Right
Book VII. Special Proceedings · Title II. Real Actions · Chapter 1. Actions to Determine Ownership Or Possession · Enacted 1974 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 30, 2026
In one sentenceArticle 3667 requires a land possessor who sues in a possessory action against a mineral-right owner, where the possessor's own title discloses that mineral right, to prove both a year of quiet possession before suit and at least ten years of the mineral right's nonuse before the year preceding suit.
Full Text of Art. 3667
Amendment History
Added by Acts 1974, No. 547, §2, eff. 1/1/1975.
Plain-English Summary
Article 3667 adds an extra proof burden for a specific, narrower situation: the land possessor's own title discloses the mineral right in question on its face. When that is true, the possessor cannot rely on ordinary possession alone to bring a possessory action against the mineral-right owner.
The land possessor still has to prove the usual element — quiet, uninterrupted possession as owner of the surface for more than a year before filing suit. But because the possessor's own title acknowledges the mineral right exists, the possessor also has to prove that the mineral right went unused, in a manner consistent with its nature, for at least ten years before the year immediately preceding the filing of the action.
Article 3667 draws a sharp boundary around what matters in this possessory action. Whether prescription against the mineral right was ever suspended or interrupted for some reason other than use is irrelevant here; that question only comes into play if the mineral-right claimant later has to defend ownership of the disputed right in a petitory action.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do I have to prove nonuse of a mineral right to bring a possessory action?
When your own title discloses the mineral right on its face. Article 3667 then requires proving both your own qualifying possession and at least ten years of the mineral right's nonuse before the year preceding the lawsuit.
Does it matter if prescription against the mineral right was interrupted for reasons other than use?
Not in the possessory action. Article 3667 makes that irrelevant here; it can only be raised by the mineral-right claimant later, as a basis for asserting ownership in a petitory action.
What if my title does not mention the mineral right at all?
Then this heightened proof requirement does not apply. Article 3668 covers that situation with a lighter standard.
Source & verification. Article text is reproduced verbatim from
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (legis.la.gov). Enacted by the Louisiana Legislature.
Last verified July 30, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: Article 3667 Louisianaproof of nonuse mineral rights possessory actionten year nonuse mineral servitude Louisianapossessory action against mineral right ownertitle discloses mineral right Louisiana