the light most favorable to the verdict, we cannot conclude Lofti’s testimony established appellant occupied the premises during the pendency of the appeal. Although Plaza Centro correctly notes Lofti testified that appellant did not vacate the premises, Lofti also testified that he had not been on the property, did not know whether the premises had been occupied since Plaza Centro purchased the property, and did not know whether Tierrablanca or Rainbow Seafood were ever open for business. Additionally, Lofti was unaware of anyone living on the premises. A bare conclusion with no basis in fact cannot support a judgment even when no objection was made to the statements at trial. See Cas. Underwriters v. Rhone, 134 Tex. 50, 53-54, 132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (Tex. Comm’n App.1939, judgm’t adopted) (<HOLDING>); see also Tex R. Evid. 602 (“A witness may not
recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal holding that bare conclusions did not amount to any evidence at all and the fact that they were admitted without objection adds nothing to their probative force holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection holding any error in admission of evidence cured when same evidence later admitted without objection holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted