Short answer. No. Family Code Article 161 limits a person to constituting, or being the beneficiary of, only one family home for purposes of the protections the law gives it. Even if a household owns several properties, only one of them can carry the legal status and benefits of the family home.
What the law says
a person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only one family home
Family Code, Article 161 — Only One Family Home Per Person. Read the full provision →
One home, one status
Article 161 limits both roles a person can play with respect to a family home: constituting one, and being its beneficiary. It states that this is “for purposes of availing of the benefits of a family home,” and that “a person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only one family home.” Owning multiple houses does not create multiple family homes in the legal sense — only one property at a time can carry that designation for a given person or family.
You cannot claim benefits through a second property
The point of the limit is to keep the family home's protections attached to a single property. If a family already has one home recognized as the family home, a second property they also own cannot separately claim that status, even if it is also used as a residence, a vacation house, or a second family gathering place. The benefits that come with family-home status are meant to shield one home, not an entire portfolio of properties a family happens to hold.
What the article does not do is tell you which property is the family home. That comes from Articles 152 and 153: the family home is the dwelling house where the family actually resides, together with the land on which it stands, and it is constituted from the time of actual occupation rather than by registering a declaration somewhere. So the question is usually settled by where the family in fact lives.
It applies to beneficiaries too, not only whoever sets it up
The rule covers being a “beneficiary,” not only the person who constitutes the home. That matters for a person who might otherwise be counted as a beneficiary of more than one household's family home — a grandparent living between two children's houses, for example. The law treats that person as tied to only one family home for these purposes, regardless of how many households they are actually part of.
Why this restriction exists
Family-home status carries real legal consequences, most importantly a measure of protection from creditors and execution. Allowing a family to spread that protection across multiple properties would let people shelter more assets than the law intends to place beyond a creditor's reach under this particular doctrine. Limiting the benefit to one home keeps the protection meaningful and proportionate rather than becoming a way to insulate an entire real-estate portfolio.
It is worth adding that even the one home is not shielded absolutely. Article 155 leaves the family home answerable for non-payment of taxes, for debts incurred before its constitution, for debts secured by mortgages on the property itself, and for debts owed to labourers, mechanics, architects, builders and materialmen who worked on it. A household counting on the exemption should check its debts against that list before assuming the protection applies.