In the case of Van Syckel v. Arsuga (1913), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights in Puerto Rico. The plaintiff, Van Syckel, claimed that he had purchased land from a man named De Castro who had acquired it through inheritance. However, the defendant, Arsuga argued that she was also an heir to this property and thus held rightful ownership as well. The lower court ruled in favor of Arsuga based on local law which stated that if there were any doubts about inheritance distribution they should be resolved in favor of equal division among heirs. Van Syckel appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that since Puerto Rico was now under American control following its acquisition after Spanish-American War, United States laws regarding real estate transactions should apply instead of local ones. He contended these would recognize his purchase as valid even if all potential heirs hadn't agreed to sell their shares. The Supreme Court disagreed with Van Syckel's argument stating that while Puerto Rico is indeed a territory of US, it still maintains its own distinct legal system for matters such as these unless Congress specifically legislates otherwise - something which hadn't happened here.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Syckel v. Arsuga, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Mr. Van Syckel's claim on his late wife's estate in Puerto Rico was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mrs. Van Syckel’s will should have been interpreted according to New Jersey law, where she resided and died, rather than Puerto Rican law as determined by the majority opinion. They contended that her intent was clear: she wanted her husband to inherit her property upon death without any restrictions or conditions attached which is permissible under New Jersey laws but not under Puerto Rican ones due to their different inheritance rules regarding marital property rights of surviving spouses. Therefore, they felt it unjust and against principles of equity for Mr.Van Syckel not being able to fully enjoy his late wife’s bequest just because some properties were located in another jurisdiction with differing legal norms.