The U.S. Supreme Court case Alberto v. Nicolas in 1928 revolved around a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws between two Filipino citizens, one of whom had become a naturalized American citizen. The plaintiff, Alberto, argued that the defendant, Nicolas (a naturalized US citizen), was not entitled to inherit land in the Philippines due to his change in citizenship status which he claimed violated Philippine law prohibiting foreign ownership of land. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that although Nicolas had changed his nationality from Filipino to American after immigrating to Hawaii and becoming a naturalized citizen there; he did not lose his right as an heir under Philippine law because at the time when their father died (which is when succession opens) both were still Filipinos since it happened before Nicholas became an American Citizen.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Alberto v. Nicolas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Alberto guilty of violating an immigration law, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented against Alberto was insufficient and did not conclusively prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They contended that there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies provided by government witnesses, which raised serious questions about their credibility and reliability. Furthermore, they pointed out that no physical or documentary evidence had been produced to corroborate these testimonies or independently establish Alberto's guilt. Therefore, they concluded that it would be unjust to convict him solely based on such weak and unreliable evidence.