In the 1907 case of Bosque v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Puerto Rico. The plaintiff, Pedro Juan Bosque, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its previous owner and therefore held rightful title to it under Spanish law before Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States following the Spanish-American War in 1898. However, after this transition occurred, an American naval officer took possession of his land without compensation or due process based on orders from higher authorities who believed that they were entitled to do so under American law as part of their military responsibilities during wartime conditions. The court ultimately decided against Bosque's claim by upholding lower court rulings which found that his purchase was not valid because it did not comply with certain requirements established by Spanish laws at the time for transferring real estate titles between private parties such as having public deeds properly executed and registered in local property records offices. This decision affirmed federal government’s authority over territorial possessions acquired through war or treaty negotiations even when doing so might conflict with pre-existing legal rights or interests recognized under foreign laws previously applicable there before changes in sovereignty occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Bosque v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Mr. Bosque his claim on land in New Mexico was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and ceded vast territories including New Mexico to America, guaranteed property rights of Mexican citizens living in these areas at that time. They contended that Mr. Bosque had valid title under Spanish law before this territory became part of U.S., thus his ownership should be recognized by American courts as well according to Article VIII of said treaty. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation about 'possessory right', arguing instead for broader understanding encompassing not just physical possession but also legal rights over property granted by previous sovereigns (Spain and Mexico). Therefore, they felt Mr.Bosque should have been allowed to keep his land.