NO. In the case TERESITA DIO vs. DRA. ROSALINDA MELO CONCEPCION (G.R. No. 129493, September 25, 1998), it was held that:

Jurisdiction of a court over a specific case, as well as the nature of the action, is determined by the averments in the complaint, and is not made to depend upon the allegations in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.

It is settled that a complaint for ejectment is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.

There is unlawful detainer when one unlawfully withholds possession of property after the expiration or termination of his right under any contract, express or implied. Unlawful detainer is also proper when a person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, fails to vacate the premises upon the owner's demand.

Under Article 1673 of the Civil Code, the lessor may judicially eject the lessee for, among other causes: (1) lack of payment of the price stipulated; or (2) violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract. Previous to the institution of such action, the lessor must make a demand upon the lessee to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate the premises. It is the owner's demand for the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenant's refusal to do so which makes unlawful the withholding of possession. Such refusal violates the owner's right of possession giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer. 16