The facts in this  case are  not disputed.   In 1945, Mercedes Gatmaitan was listed as the owner of Lot No. 8709, situated at Kaytukong, Paombong, Bulacan, served by the Angat Irrigation System.  For  failure  to  pay the irrigation charges for the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, proceedings for the  collection of unpaid irrigation charges were instituted m the Court of  First Instance of Bulacan (Irrigation Case No. 1), in accordance with Irrigation Act No. 2152, as amended.  Among the  delinquent  lots proceeded against was Lot No. 8709.   Under section 13 of the Irrigation Law, as  amended by Section 4 of Act 3523, it is provided that:

"Charges for administration expenses of irrigation system are declared preferred liens over  all other Kens except that for taxes on the land or any mortgage lien in favor of the Philippine Agricultural Bank  or its successor  and  such preferred lien shall not be removed until all charges  are paid or the property is sold for payment thereof."

Section 13 further provides:

"Within one  year after default of payment on an installment payable on any parcel of land, the Municipal President, the  Provincial Treasurer or the Director of Public Works  shall  file with the Clerk of  Court  of First Instance of  the  district in which the  land is situated, a list of all lands  upon  which default has been  made. The Clerk of Court shall thereupon publish in the manner provided for the publication of summons in a civil action, a list of the lands so filed by the Director of Public Works, accompanied by a notice requiring all the owners  to  file an  answer  thereto within  thirty days after the completion of  the publication.

"Upon the filing of an answer by the person interested, the action in respect to such person shall proceed to judgment, as provided for other actions by the Code of  Civil Procedure.  Upon termination of such thirty days, judgment shall be entered against such persons as have not  answered, and their lands, or the portion thereof, deemed necessary, shall be  sold, after ten days public notice, auction by the Sheriff to satisfy such preferred lien."

Evidently, the publication! above described was made and upon  failure of Mercedes  Gatmaitan  to file her answer within the period prescribed, judgment by the court was rendered against her, ordering the sale of Lot No. 8709 or such portion thereof as may be necessary, to satisfy the delinquencies in the irrigation charges, and  costs of the proceedings.  Thereafter, Mercedes  and  six others who claim to be purchasers  from Mercedes  of the greater portion of Lot No. 8709, brought the present action, seeking to enjoin the defendants, Director of  Public Works, the Supervising Project  Engineer  of  the Angat River Irrigation System,  and the Provincial  Sheriff of Bulacan, from executing any writ of execution or any alias writ of execution which may be issued to satisfy  the said judgment in so  far as they (plaintiffs)  are concerned.  A writ of preliminary  injunction  was issued on the basis  of a stipulation of facts  submitted by the appellees.  The Court of First Instance of  Bulacan, presided  by Judge  Jesus Y. Perez, rendered judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, without costs, and ordering the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction already issued.  Plaintiffs  appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,  which appeal was indorsed to us on the ground that only  a question of law was involved.

The present  appeal involves the interpretation of  the Irrigation Act, as amended, as  regards the  proceedings for the  collection of unpaid irrigation  charges,  whether said action is one in rem or it is an action in personam Judge Perez,  in a well  prepared decision, held that inasmuch  as the Irrigation Act created a  statutory lien on the lot in question as regards the irrigation charges, and the proceedings being  one  for the enforcement of  said statutory lien on real property, the action is in rem,  and that  by the mere publication of the list of delinquent  lots or parcels as contemplated by the Irrigation Act, even without personal notification to Mercedes Gatmaitan, the trial court acquired jurisdiction and consequently, the judgment rendered ordering the sale of Lot No. 8709, was valid.   The holding of the trial court is not entirely without basis. In some jurisdictions, an action  to enforce  a statutory lien  on real property is  regarded as  an  action in rem, while in others the same action is considered an action in personam.   Said this Court in the case  of Lopez vs.  Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 29:

"An examination of  practically all of the authorities has  been made  upon the question whether or not  the  proceeding  for the collection of taxes  upon real estate is an action in personam or an action in rem.  The result of  that examination  is, that the authorities are about equally divided.  Some hold that  the  proceeding is an action in personam while others hold that it is an action in  rem. In this jurisdiction, by virtue  of the procedure  adopted in  relation with the remedy given, we have held in the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Adriano, supra, that the proceedings  here are in personam and not in rem."

In  deciding between the two theories,  the  question of public policy also enters.  In the  case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Adriano, 41 Phil. 112, this Court held that the proceedings to collect real estate taxes is an action in personam.   Although the proceeding provided by law in  the  enforcement  of the  Government lien on lands by reason of irrigation  fees  is a  little different, for  the protection of the landowner delinquent in the  payment of said  irrigation fees,  we should adopt and follow  in this jurisdiction  as the  better  rule, that  said proceedings be considered in personam in the  sense that, although  the delinquent  landowner is  summoned  by  publication,  he should  be sent personal  notice of the delinquency and of the necessity to  answer, addressed  to his last known  address and by ordinary mail.  This is in  accordance with the provisions of Rule 7, section 17 of the Rules of  Court, taken from section 399  of the  Code  of Civil Procedure, referring to publication of  summons in  a  civil  action, mentioned in  section  13 of the  Irrigation  Act, aforementioned and quoted.  Section 17,  Rule 7, reads:

"Sec. 17. Extraterritorial  service. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of  the plaintiff or relates to,  or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded  consists, wholly or in part,  in excluding the defendant from  any  interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service  may, by leave of court, be effected out  of the  Philippines by personal  service as  under section 7;  or by registered mail;  or  by publication in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case  a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by ordinary mail to the last known address of the  defendant;  or in any other manner the court  may deem sufficient. Any  order granting such leave  shall  specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty  (60)  days after notice, within  which  the  defendant must answer."

The Government or the Irrigation Board certainly has a list of the .owners whose lands are served by the irrigation system.   It may be that in the course of time, said owners may have conveyed and sold their parcels to other persons without notifying the Irrigation Board.  In such cases, the personal notice may be  sent to or addressed to the owner appearing  in said list, and this.would be sufficient compliance with the law because the  irrigation authorities are not bound by any changes in ownership or title of the lands served by it if not duly notified thereof.

One reason for this view that  a delinquent  irrigation fee payer should be given personal notice and an opportunity to appear and question  the legality and propriety of the enforcement of the lien,  which has for its object the sale of his land, is that as held by this Court in the case of Arriete vs. Director of Public Works, 58 Phil.  507:

"* * * Due process requires that the statutes under which it is attempted to deprive  a citizen of private property  without or against his  consent must, as in expropriation cases, be strictly complied with, because such statutes are in derogation of general right.  *  * *"

In fact,  in said case of Arriete vs. Director of Public Works, this Court has already squarely decided that the owner of land delinquent in the payment of irrigation fees should be personally notified of the proceeding.  The trial court was  aware of this case of Arriete but  it declined to be bound by its ruling on the ground that  the reason this Tribunal considered the proceedings in that case as an action in personam was because the judgment rendered against defendant was a personal one.

Another reason is that it is a matter of common knowledge that  our people  in the rural areas served by irrigation  systems,  are not yet given too much  reading of newspapers and periodicals, specially of published court or judicial notices, and naturally, would be in  no position to know of the threatened and impending sale of their delinquent lots.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby set aside and the writ of preliminary injunction in plaintiffs'  favor  is  made  permanent.  We hold and  declare that the trial court in Irrigation Case No. 1 lacked jurisdiction in  said case for failure to personally notify Mercedes  Gatmaitan.  Consequently, the proceedings  therein as  regards Lot.  No. 8709 are null and void.   To enforce the lien against said lot,  new  proceedings will  have to be  instituted with proper notifications as required by law. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.