Answer
Both prevent unjust enrichment, but solutio indebiti is the narrower of the two. Solutio indebiti, under Article 2154, arises specifically when a person receives something that was not due to him and it was unduly delivered to him through mistake — he must then return it. Unjust enrichment under Article 22 (accion in rem verso) is broader: it does not require a mistake in payment, only that one party was enriched at another's expense without just or legal ground.
So every solutio indebiti is a form of unjust enrichment, but not every unjust enrichment is solutio indebiti. Solutio indebiti is a specific quasi-contract that hinges on a mistaken payment; accion in rem verso is the general, subsidiary remedy that applies when no contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delict covers the situation.
Researching Philippine law? Intellegal brings Philippine case-law search, statute and issuance exploration, multi-dimension case comparison, document visualization, and cited deep-research reports into a single workflow — with every citation traced back to its original source, so you can verify each answer rather than take it on trust. Every authority it surfaces links back to its original provision or decision, so you can open the source and confirm the wording yourself, and save or export the questions and reports you reference most. See the full report for the statutes and cases behind this answer, or explore the related questions below.