Short answer. Yes. A refusal to sign does not defeat the judgment. The court may direct the act to be done by some other person it appoints, at the disobedient party's cost, with the same effect as if that party had signed. For property here, the court can instead divest and vest title by order.
What the law says
the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party
Rule 39, Section 10 — Execution of judgments for specific act. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law
Rule 39, Section 10 — Execution of judgments for specific act. Read the full provision →
Refusing to sign does not stall the judgment
Section 10 is written for exactly this situation. Where a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal property, to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act in connection with it, and that party fails to comply within the time specified, the court does not simply repeat the order. It may direct the act to be done by some other person appointed by the court, and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party himself. The signature you were waiting for is, in substance, supplied by the court's appointee.
The cost falls on the party who refused
The provision places the expense where it belongs. The act is directed to be done at the cost of the disobedient party. That matters practically as well as in principle: the winning party is not made to fund the extra step that the losing party's non-compliance created. It also removes an obvious incentive to stall. A party who calculates that refusing to sign will simply make the process expensive for his opponent has the calculation the wrong way round under this section, because the added cost is charged to him rather than absorbed by the party entitled to the conveyance.
The court can transfer title directly
There is a second, more direct route. Where the real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance may by order divest the title of any party and vest it in others. Such an order has the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. So the transfer can be accomplished by the order itself rather than by any document the losing party signs or refuses to sign. The condition attached in the text is location: this route is available for property situated within the Philippines.
What to bring to the court
Both remedies in this section are triggered by a failure to comply within the time specified, so the practical starting point is a judgment or order that fixes a period, and a clear record that the period has run without compliance. Which of the two routes fits depends on what the judgment actually directed and on where the property is. Neither is automatic, and both are the court's to grant on the record before it, so a party in this position should take the judgment, the order fixing the period and proof of non-compliance to counsel rather than waiting for the other side to relent.