The TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS case in 1909 revolved around the issue of land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Tiglao, claimed that he had been unjustly deprived of his lands by the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands without due process or just compensation, which was a violation of his constitutional rights under U.S law since Philippines was then a territory under American control. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that not all provisions and protections offered by the U.S Constitution extended to territories outside mainland America unless explicitly stated so by Congress. Therefore, Tiglao's claim for protection under these specific constitutional clauses were deemed invalid as they did not apply to territorial possessions like Philippines at that time.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tiglao v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Supreme Court. The justice disagreed with how land ownership rights were determined, arguing that it disregarded traditional native customs and practices. He believed that these should be recognized as valid forms of establishing property rights, even if they did not align perfectly with Western legal concepts or procedures. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on indigenous communities due to this ruling, including loss of lands traditionally held by them for generations without formal documentation under western law systems. This could lead to displacement and economic hardship for these communities who rely heavily on their lands for survival.