Ask your own question →
This page answers the general question. Deep Synthesis answers yours, with citations.

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.

Sources & further reading

Cases on this topic

Related questions

Ask your own question →
This page answers the general question. Deep Synthesis answers yours, with citations.
Read the full report →
Research aid — not legal advice. Verify the current text against the Official Gazette. Provisions may have been amended or repealed. Using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer.