Was the Ark case specifically about the Constitutional requirements for the presidency/highest office in the USA?
In WKA, the state argued WKA was not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The original case, heard in California, had argued WKA wasn’t a citizen under the 14th, and the Supreme Court specifically held that he was.
Both the original case and the argument to the Supreme Court claimed the US was ruled by Roman law and the idea that citizenship followed parentage, not birth location. It sought to overturn the basis for citizenship that had been used for over 100 years. That was rejected then, as now.
They did not, however, specifically hold that he was a natural born citizen. Even if they had, they could, in theory, overturn that decision now - the Supreme Court reserves the right to reverse themselves.
It probably is worth noticing that the dissent in WKA complained:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”