Although not the owner or the possessor of the disputed land in which the Certificate of Utilization of such Land (Nor. Sor. 3 Kor.) may be revoked due to being the domaine public of State, the interpleaders were persons whose domicile, profession and habitation were in the disputed land. Consequently, the interpleaders had the rights to exploitation of land which was the domaine public of State under the laws. They also had the rights to participation with the State and communities in the preservation and exploitation of natural resources and biological diversity and in the protection, promotion and conservation of the quality of the environment for usual and consistent survival in the environment which was not hazardous to their health and sanitary condition, welfare or quality of lives as prescribed in the Constitution. The interpleaders, therefore, were entitled to file a motion of interpleading to the court.