In the case of Cordova v. Folgueras Y Rijos, 1912, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Puerto Rican court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving property located in Cuba. The plaintiff, Cordova, argued that he was entitled to certain properties in Cuba as part of an inheritance from his deceased father's estate. However, the defendants (Folgueras Y Rijos) claimed ownership of these same properties based on their purchase from another heir who allegedly held legal title to them. The Supreme Court ruled against Cordova and upheld the decision made by lower courts in favor of Folgueras Y Rijos. The justices found that Puerto Rican courts did indeed have jurisdiction over this matter because it involved personal rights and obligations between parties residing within its territory - even though the disputed property itself was situated outside its borders. This ruling clarified how territorial jurisdictions apply when dealing with disputes about foreign assets among residents under American law.

The dissenting opinion in the Cordova v. Folgueras Y Rijos case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Puerto Rican court's ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of property law and inheritance rights. The dissent believed that the lower court had misinterpreted Spanish civil law, which should have been applied in this case due to Puerto Rico's history as a Spanish colony. They contended that under proper interpretation of this law, Mr. Cordova should have inherited his father’s estate despite being born out of wedlock since he had been acknowledged by his father during his lifetime - an act they considered legally sufficient for establishing paternity and inheritance rights under Spanish civil law.