In the case of Monagas v. Albertucci in 1914, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights in Puerto Rico. The plaintiff, Monagas, claimed that he had purchased land from its original owner and sought to evict the defendant, Albertucci who was occupying it. However, Albertucci argued that he had acquired ownership through adverse possession - a doctrine which allows someone to gain legal title to property by openly inhabiting and maintaining it for an extended period without protest from the true owner. The lower court ruled in favor of Albertucci but this decision was reversed on appeal. The U.S Supreme Court held that while adverse possession could be used as a defense against eviction under Puerto Rican law at the time of purchase by Monagas (prior to US acquisition), such laws were not applicable after US took control over Puerto Rico following Spanish-American War because they conflicted with federal laws regarding real estate transactions. Therefore, since Monagas bought his land after American takeover when these local laws no longer applied; his claim prevailed over any right obtained by Albertucci through adverse possession.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Monagas v. Albertucci argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this case, as it was a matter for Puerto Rican courts. The justice believed that because Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States and has its own judicial system, cases originating there should be resolved within their local court system unless they involve federal law or constitutional issues. This view held that allowing such cases to come before the Supreme Court undermines Puerto Rico's autonomy and self-governance rights granted by Congress under Foraker Act (1900) and Jones-Shafroth Act (1917). Furthermore, it could set a dangerous precedent where other territories might seek similar treatment from U.S courts rather than resolving disputes locally.