## Facts

- Dominga Dominguez sued Brigido Botiller and other occupants in California in an ejectment-style action to recover possession of “Rancho Las Virgenes.”
- Dominguez claimed title through an alleged Mexican grant issued in 1834 to Nemecio Dominguez and Domingo Carrillo.
- No claim under the alleged grant was presented to the federal board of land commissioners created by the Act of Mar. 3, 1851, and no United States patent issued for the land.
- Botiller and the other defendants possessed, improved, and cultivated the land while claiming rights as preemption or homestead settlers on the theory the land was public land of the United States.
- The trial court instructed that the Mexican grant was a “perfect grant” under Mexican law, equivalent to a United States patent, and that it need not be submitted for federal confirmation; judgment entered for Dominguez.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a pre-annexation Mexican land grant in California may be enforced in U.S. courts despite the claimant’s failure to submit the claim for confirmation under the Act of Mar. 3, 1851.
2. Whether, in domestic adjudication, a later Act of Congress requiring a confirmation procedure controls when the claimant invokes property protections associated with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Dominguez.
- The Court held that claims to California land derived from Spanish or Mexican grants are not valid in U.S. courts unless submitted to and confirmed through the federal process established by the 1851 Act (including judicial review routes provided by that scheme).
- The Court rejected the view that “perfect” Mexican grants were exempt from the statutory presentation requirement.
- The Court stated that if a federal statute conflicts with a treaty, courts must apply the statute as the later domestic enactment.

## Legal Principles

- Under the “last-in-time” rule, when an Act of Congress and a treaty conflict in domestic litigation, courts apply the statute.
- The Act of Mar. 3, 1851 provided the exclusive mechanism for validating Spanish and Mexican land claims in California.
- Failure to present a Spanish or Mexican land claim for confirmation within the statutory framework renders the asserted title unenforceable against the United States and those claiming under federal law.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an unpresented Mexican land grant could not support recovery in ejectment because the 1851 federal confirmation process was mandatory for all Spanish and Mexican land claims in California, and a later federal statute governs even when a claimant relies on treaty-based property protections.


Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889)