In the event of a dispute between the owner of a mineral servitude and the owner of a mineral royalty burdening or alleged to burden the servitude in question, the possessory action is unavailable to either party, and the only available real action is the petitory action. The burden of proof on the plaintiff in the petitory action is to prove a better title than that of the defendant.
Art. 3669.Possessory Action Unavailable Between Owner of Mineral Servitude and Owner of Dependent Mineral Royalty
Book VII. Special Proceedings · Title II. Real Actions · Chapter 1. Actions to Determine Ownership Or Possession · Last amended 2023 · Last verified July 30, 2026
In one sentenceArticle 3669 removes the possessory action entirely from a dispute between the owner of a mineral servitude and the owner of a dependent mineral royalty, leaving only the petitory action available, in which the plaintiff must prove a title better than the defendant's.
Full Text of Art. 3669
Amendment History
Amended by Acts 2023, No. 421, §2, eff. 8/1/2023. Added by Acts 1974, No. 547, §2, eff. 1/1/1975.
Plain-English Summary
A mineral royalty can burden a mineral servitude, meaning one mineral-right holder's interest is dependent on another's. Article 3669 addresses what happens when the servitude owner and the royalty owner end up in a dispute about that relationship: neither one can use the possessory action to resolve it.
Instead, the petitory action is the only real action open to either side. And the burden is not the qualifying-possession shortcut sometimes available under Article 3653 — Article 3669 requires the petitory-action plaintiff to prove a title better than the defendant's, the more demanding standard, regardless of how long either party has held their respective interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a mineral servitude owner bring a possessory action against a mineral royalty owner?
No. Article 3669 makes the possessory action unavailable to either party in a dispute between the owner of a mineral servitude and the owner of a dependent mineral royalty.
What action is available instead?
Only the petitory action, in which the plaintiff has to prove a title better than the defendant's rather than relying on the possession-based shortcuts available in some other real actions.
Why does Louisiana treat this dispute differently from other mineral-rights disputes?
Because the servitude and the dependent royalty are legally linked interests rather than competing possessory claims to the same right, so the dispute is better resolved by comparing title than by litigating possession.
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 3669 Louisianamineral servitude royalty dispute Louisianapossessory action unavailable mineral royaltypetitory action mineral servitudedependent mineral royalty Louisiana