What is cognition theory?
Paragraph 2 of Article 1319 of the Civil Code discusses the theory of cognition:
With regard to contracts between absent persons, the acceptance
may be transmitted by any means which the offerer has authorized the
offeree to use.[1] The above provision is the theory of cognition or information. An example of constructive knowledge is where the letter or
telegram containing the acceptance is received by the offerer who
for some reason did not read it but not where he could not have read it
as when he was absent or physically incapacitated at the time of the
receipt of the same. The presumption, however, is that the offerer read
the contents thereof or came to know of the acceptance.[2]
Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the offerer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The contract, in such a case, is presumed to have been entered into in the place where the offer was made. (1262a)
With regard to contracts between absent persons, the acceptance
may be transmitted by any means which the offerer has authorized the
offeree to use.[1] The above provision is the theory of cognition or information. An example of constructive knowledge is where the letter or
telegram containing the acceptance is received by the offerer who
for some reason did not read it but not where he could not have read it
as when he was absent or physically incapacitated at the time of the
receipt of the same. The presumption, however, is that the offerer read
the contents thereof or came to know of the acceptance.[2]Furthermore, an offer can be revoked. In Laudicio v. Arias[3], the Supreme Court held that before the acceptance is known, the offer can be revoked, it not being necessary, in order for the revocation to have the effect of preventing the perfection of the contract, that it be known by the acceptant. Similarly, the offeree may revoke the acceptance he has already sent, provided, the revocation reaches the offeror before the latter learns of the acceptance.[4]
[1] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts.
[2] Id.
[3] Laudico and Harden vs. Arias, 43 Phil. 270 (1922).
[4] Supra note 1.