Similarly, although a landowner need not use the phrase “market value” in describing his valuation, merely invoking that phrase does not make otherwise con-clusory or speculative testimony legally sufficient. Cf. Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 540 (Tex.2010) (“While we have said that no ‘magical words’ need be used to meet the good-faith requirement, mere invocation of the phrase ‘medical probability’ is likewise no guarantee that the report will be found adequate.”). Joseph Justiss, Tommy Alspaugh, and' Joe Denton and Christine Mashburn merely answered “yes” when asked whether their numbers were based on market value, but they never explained how they arrived at those figures. Joseph Justiss testified only to what made the property valuable to him. See Porras, 675 S.W.2d at 505 (<HOLDING>). Although Joe Denton and Christine- Mashburn
holding that testimony by the owners expert to the value of trees on appropriated property was properly admitted to rebut or impeach testimony by the appropriating agencys expert that the trees had no value in terms of their effect on the propertys market value holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding testimony of owner referring to personal rather than market value irrelevant and no evidence even absent objection holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding owners testimony as to autos value as nothing as she could not depend on it or sell it referred to intrinsic value of vehicle to her and constituted no evidence