In the case of Bowman v. Loperena et al., 1940, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a matter involving property rights in Puerto Rico. The dispute arose when Mr. Bowman purchased land from Mrs. Loperena that had been previously mortgaged to another party, who later foreclosed on it after Mrs. Loperena defaulted on her payments. Despite having paid for and taken possession of the land, Mr.Bowman found himself dispossessed following foreclosure proceedings initiated by the mortgagee against Mrs.Loperena. Mr.Bowman sued both parties claiming he should not have lost his property due to their actions as he was an innocent purchaser for value without notice of any defect in title or lien upon it at time of purchase.The court ruled against him stating that under Puerto Rican law, registration is necessary to validate real estate transfers and since there was no evidence showing such registration had occurred prior to foreclosure proceedings being instituted by mortgagee; therefore,the transfer could not be upheld. The decision underscored importance of conducting thorough due diligence before purchasing properties especially those encumbered by mortgages.It also highlighted significance attached by courts towards upholding principles underlying Torrens system (land registration) which aims at providing certainty about ownership status through maintenance and updating public registers.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bowman v. Loperena et al., 1940, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to its failure to consider important aspects of Puerto Rican law and constitutional rights. The dissent emphasized that under Puerto Rican law, an individual has a right not to be subjected to double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime - which is also protected by the U.S Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. In this case, they believed that Mr. Bowman had been unfairly subjected to two trials for essentially identical charges related only through circumstance but treated as separate offenses by different courts (a military tribunal and then civilian court). They contended that such action violated his rights against double jeopardy and thus should have resulted in overturning his conviction from one or both trials.