Title
Cui vs. Arellano University
Case
G.R. No. L-15127
Decision Date
May 30, 1961
Emeterio Cui, a law student, transferred universities after receiving scholarships. Arellano University demanded refunds for his scholarships upon transfer, citing a signed agreement. The Supreme Court ruled the refund clause void, deeming it contrary to public policy, and ordered the university to return the funds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15127)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Emeterio Cui
Respondent: Arellano University

Key Dates

– School year 1948–1949: Cui begins preparatory law, then law studies at Arellano University
– August 16, 1949: Director of Private Schools issues Memorandum No. 38 on scholarships
– September 10, 1951: Cui executes scholarship agreement containing a waiver clause
– 1953: Cui applies for bar examination; denied transcript unless he refunds P1,033.87
– September 1, 1954: Cui files suit for recovery of P1,033.87 plus damages
– May 30, 1961: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

– 1935 Philippine Constitution (operative at decision date)
– Memorandum No. 38, s. 1949, Bureau of Private Schools, prescribing that scholarship recipients should not be charged for transferring institutions
– Principles of public policy in contract law, as recognized in both Philippine and American jurisprudence

Facts

Cui completed the first semester of his fourth year of law at Arellano University under full or partial scholarships, which entitled him to tuition refunds each semester. When his uncle, Dean Capistrano, left Arellano University, Cui transferred to Abad Santos University for his final semester, graduated there, and sought his transcripts from Arellano University to qualify for the bar examination. Arellano University conditioned issuance of the transcripts on Cui’s repayment of P1,033.87—the total value of his prior scholarships—pursuant to a signed agreement waiving Cui’s right to transfer without refunding the equivalent scholarship value. Despite a favorable opinion from the Bureau of Private Schools declaring the waiver provision contrary to the policy in Memorandum No. 38, Arellano University refused to comply. Cui paid the amount under protest and then sued to recover it, plus moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. Arellano University counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees.

Issue

Whether a contract provision requiring a scholarship recipient to refund the value of his scholarship before transferring to another institution is valid or void as contrary to public policy.

Ruling

The Supreme Court held the waiver clause void for contravening public policy and ordered Arellano University to refund P1,033.87 with legal interest, dismissing the counterclaim.

Rationale

  1. Public Policy and Scholarship Principles
    Scholarships recognize merit and are not instruments to insure student retention for institutional prestige. A contract that compels repayment of scholarship value upon transfer undermines the principle that scholarships are earned rewards.
  2. Authority of Government Practice
    While Memorandum No. 38 itself is not a law, the Court treated its policy pronouncements as reflective of prevailing public policy, alongside constitutional provisions, statutes, judici

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.