On July 6, 1938, respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for dividends amounting to P71.379.90 on 52,874 shares of stock registered in his name, payment of which was being withheld by the company; and, for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. To the complaint, the company filed its answer alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of such dividends and the non-recognition of plaintiff's right to the disposal and control of the shares were due to certain demands made with respect to said shares by the petitioner herein, Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H. Engelhard. The answer prays that the adverse claimants be made parties to the action and served with notice thereof by publication, and that thereafter all such parties be required to interplead and settle the rights among themselves. On September 5, 1938, the trial court ordered respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to include in his complaint as parties defendant petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, and George H. Engelhard.  The complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the original complaint, respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert thereon. Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. On December 9, 1938, Engelhard filed his answer to the amended complaint, and on December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her pleading entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's objection, motion and demurrer having been overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari, praying that the summons by publication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to her, respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.

The controlling issue here involved is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the present petitioner as a non-resident defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such jurisdiction, whether or not said court may validly try the case. The parties have filed lengthy memorandums relying on numerous authorities, but the principles governing the question are well settled in this jurisdiction.

Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident defendant is sued in the Philippine courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or personal property within the Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from any interest therein, service of summons may be made by publication.

We have fully explained the meaning of this provision in El Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921, wherein we laid down the following rules:

(1)	In order that the court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which organizes a court and determines the nature and extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with reference to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.
(2)	When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntarily, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person even if the summons be served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. No tribunal established by one State can extend its process beyond its territory so as to subject to its decisions either persons or property located in another State. "There are many expressions in the American reports from which it might be inferred that the court acquires personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by publication and notice; but such is not the case. In truth, the proposition that jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident cannot be acquired by publication and notice was never clearly understood even in the American courts until after the decision had been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case of Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U. S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565). In the light of that decision, and of other decisions which have subsequently been rendered in that and other courts, the proposition that jurisdiction over the person cannot be thus acquired by publication and notice is no longer open to question; and it is now fully established that a personal judgment upon constructive or substituted service against a non-resident who does not appear is wholly invalid. This doctrine applies to all kinds of constructive or substituted process, including service by publication and personal service outside of the jurisdiction in which the judgment is rendered; and the only exception seems to be found in the case where the non-resident defendant has expressly or impliedly consented to the mode of service. (Note to Raher vs. Raher, 35 L. R. A. [N. S.], 292; see also 5 L. R. A. 585; 35 L. R. A. [N. S.], 312.)
(3)	The general rule, therefore, is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court. Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection with property located in the Philippines , the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-essential. In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law. " An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the property, assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world."
(4)	As before stated, in an action in rem or quasi in rem against a non-resident defendant, jurisdiction over his person is non-essential, and if the law requires in such case that the summons upon the defendant be served by publication, it is merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. If any be said, in this connection, that "many reported cases can be cited in which it is assumed that the question of the sufficiency of publication or notice in a case of this kind is a question affecting the jurisdiction of the court, and the court is sometimes said to acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the publication. This phraseology was undoubtedly originally adopted by the court because of the analogy between service by publication and personal service of process upon the defendant; and, as has already been suggested, prior to the decision of Pennoyer v. Neff (supra), the difference between the legal effects of the two forms of service was obscure. It is accordingly not surprising that the modes of expression which had already been moulded into legal tradition before that case was decided have been brought down to the present day. But it is clear that the legal principle here involved is not affected, by the peculiar language in which the courts have expounded their ideas."

The reason for the rule that Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident, as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, may be found in a recognized principle of public law to the effect that "no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory. Story, Confl. L., ch. 2; Wheat, Int. L., pt. 2, ch. 2. The several States are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by jurists, as an elementary principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal established by it can extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions.  'Any exertion of authority of this sort beyond this limit,' says Story, 'is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in any other tribunals.'  Story, Confl. L., sec. 539." (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565, 568-569.)

When, however, the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine courts may validly try the case, upon the principle that a "State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State's jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into the non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident has no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate." (Pennoyer v. Neff, supra.)

In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by Eugene Arthur Perkins in his amended complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines.  That property consists in certain shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a sociedad anonima, organized in the Philippines under the provisions of the Spanish Code of Commerce, with its principal office in the City of Manila and which conducts its mining activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the jurisdiction where the corporation is created, whether the certificates evidencing the ownership of those shares are within or without that jurisdiction. (Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Permanent ed., Vol. 11, p. 95). Under these circumstances, we hold that the action thus brought is quasi in rem, for, while the judgment that may be rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes and settles the title to the property in controversy and to that extent partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem." (50 C. J., p. 503). As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff (supra):

"It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in rem is one taken directly against property, and has for its object the disposition of the property, without reference to the title of individual claimants; but, in a larger and more general sense, the terms are applied to actions between parties, where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest therein."

The action being quasi in rem, the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the same even if it can acquire no jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process, summons has been served upon her by publication. There is no question as to the adequacy of the publication made nor as to the mailing of the order of publication to the petitioner's last known place of residence in the United States. But, of course, the action being quasi in rem and notice having been made by publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-resident.  In the amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for against the petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be declared to be without any interest in the shares in controversy and that she be excluded from any claim thereto.

Petitioner contends that the proceeding instituted against her is one of interpleading and is therefore an action in personam.  Section 120 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that whenever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation or any portion thereof, so that he may be made subject to several actions by different persons, such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants, disclaiming personal interest in the controversy, and the court may order them to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among themselves, and thereupon proceed to determine their several claims. Here, the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, in its answer to the complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, averred that in connection with the shares of stock in question, conflicting claims were being made upon it by said plaintiff, Eugene Arthur Perkins, his wife Idonah Slade Perkins, and one named George H. Engelhard, and prayed that these last two be made parties to the action and served with summons by publication, so that the three claimants may litigate their conflicting claims and settle their rights among themselves. The court has not issued an order compelling the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among themselves, but instead ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint including the other two claimants as parties defendant. The plaintiff did so, praying that the new defendants thus joined be excluded from any interest in the shares in question, and it is upon this amended complaint that the court ordered the service of the summons by publication. It is, therefore, clear that the publication of the summons was ordered not in virtue of an interpleading, but upon the filing of the amended complaint wherein an action quasi in rem is alleged.

Had not the complaint been amended, including the herein petitioner as an additional defendant, and had the court, upon the filing of the answer of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, issued an order under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling the conflicting claimants into court and compelling them to interplead with one another, such order could not perhaps have validly been served by publication or otherwise, upon the non-resident Idonah Slade Perkins, for then the proceeding would be purely one of interpleading. Such proceeding is a personal action, for it merely seeks to call conflicting claimants into court so that they may interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves, and no specific relief is prayed for against them, as the interpleader simply disclaims any personal interest in the controversy. What would be the situation, if, after the claimants have appeared in court, one of them pleads ownership of the personal property located in the Philippines and seeks to exclude a non-resident claimant from any interest therein, is a question which we do not decide now. Suffice it to say that here the service of the summons by publication was ordered by the lower court by virtue of an action quasi in rem against the non-resident defendant.

Respondents contend that, as the petitioner in the lower court has pleaded res adjudicata, lis pendens and lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, she has submitted herself to its jurisdiction. We have noticed, however, that these pleas have been made not as independent grounds for relief, but merely as additional arguments in support of her contention that the lower court had no jurisdiction over her person.  In other words, she claimed that the lower court had no jurisdiction over her person not only because she is a non-resident, but also because the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action and that the issues therein involved have already been decided by the New York court and are being relitigated in the California court.  Although this argument is obviously erroneous, as neither jurisdiction over the subject-matter nor res adjudicata nor lis pendens has anything to do with the question of jurisdiction over her person, we believe and so hold that the petitioner has not, by such, erroneous argument, submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court. Voluntary appearance cannot be implied from either a mistaken or superfluous reasoning but from the nature of the relief prayed for.

For all of the foregoing, petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Laurel, J., concurs in the result.