In the 1912 U.S. Supreme Court case of Ubeda v. Zialcita, the court ruled on a dispute over property rights in Manila, Philippines which was then under American control following the Spanish-American War. The plaintiff, Donato Ubeda claimed he had purchased land from its original owner while defendant Francisco Zialcita argued that he had acquired it through inheritance and thus held rightful ownership. The Supreme Court upheld previous rulings by lower courts in favor of Zialcita based on evidence provided including documents and testimonies supporting his claim to inheritance. This decision affirmed that local laws regarding property and inheritance were still applicable despite changes in sovereignty due to war or other circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ubeda v. Zialcita argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found for Zialcita, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant procedural errors made during the trial and these mistakes had unfairly influenced its outcome. It also disagreed with how evidence was interpreted by both the trial court and Supreme Court majority, arguing instead that when viewed objectively it supported Ubeda's claims rather than those of Zialcita. Furthermore, they believed certain laws were misapplied or overlooked entirely during proceedings - an oversight they felt further undermined justice being served correctly in this instance.