The penny is the coin, and cent refers to how much the penny is worth.
If I told you I had 15 cents, that could be three nickels, or a dime and five pennies, or two nickels and five pennies (there are other possible combinations as well).
Since she already mentioned the dime, it makes sense that she also said "pennies" instead of "cents." I suppose she might have said:
I have a dime plus four more cents
That would be grammatical, but usually we speak of coins with coins and cents with cents.
Had you asked me the same question, and I had the same amount of money, I'd probably say either of these:
I have a dime and four pennies.
or
I only have fourteen cents.
I might lean toward the first wording if you asked me about currency:
Do you have a quarter?
No, I only have a dime and four pennies.
but the second if you asked me about money:
How much money do you have?
On me? Only fourteen cents.
One other possibility, if I had to count my money in order to answer your question (in other words, I knew I has some coins in my pocket, but didn't remember what they were), then I might say it like she did:
How much money do you have?
On me? Let me see. [pulls five coins from pocket] I've got a dime.... and four pennies.
I'd assume you could do the math as easily as I could, so I wouldn't bother to state the sum.
There's some nuanced differences between the two. I came to know implies a more lengthy, substantial or involved process of acquiring knowledge than I learned. Synonyms of come to know include come to understand and become acquainted with, which are a little more distant from learn. For example, I came to know calculus suggests a drawn out process or a deeper, more personal relationship with the subject than I learned.
I don't know of any instances where I learned cannot be validly replaced by I came to know, but I do know that the exchange doesn't always work in the other direction. I came to know my neighbor is fine, but I learned my neighbor is unsemantic (people are not facts or ideas; you cannot learn them). I discount learned a lesson here because it carries a very specific meaning and uses learn in a different sense than usual. Cambridge even lists it as a phrasal verb (or at least thinks it merits a separate entry).
However, your question includes that after both phrases. Having that makes it about some particular pieces of information. In this case, came to know is a superset of learned, because both are completed processes of acquiring knowledge, and learning is about retaining specific facts. Because of this, I can't think of any cases where one works and the other doesn't if you include that.
Regarding your example, what's the context? Was the discovery of this information expedient and easy? Is the sentence intended to be merely informational? If so, use learned. Was it very difficult or time consuming to find out the woman's status? Is it the knowledge extremely important and worth emphasizing? Are you trying to avoid being prosaic? If so, use came to know. Compare:
I flew to Bangladesh to see my cousin. After landing, I went to a restaurant to meet her and her husband. Upon arrival, I learned that she was not in town. She had to make a business trip and would return the following week.
Tracking the billionaire's wife across Europe was no easy task, but I finally found out she was in Madrid, so I double timed it over there. Upon arrival, I came to know that she was not in town. I asked around at the likely clubs and bribed clerks at the upscale hotels, but if anyone had seen her they weren't talking.
Best Answer
Concur and agree are synonyms, but "I couldn't agree more" is a set phrase. While they technically mean the same thing, replacing agree with concur in that phrase sounds a little peculiar.
Concur is highly formal, commonly found in legislative or judicial settings. Agree is a more frequent and common word. "I couldn't agree more" is somewhat colloquial, so rephrasing with concur sticks out as a weird word choice.