我國對於債權之消滅時效採債務人抗辯權發生主義，票據又屬短期時效，故執票人應儘速行使權利而使票據債務人早日脫卻嚴重責任，了結票據關係。票據日時效期間，我國採差等主義，依票據法第22條分為3項：（1）第1項所規定者，係對匯票承兌人及本票發票人之付款請求權為3年，別無爭議。但對於支票發票人之權利，依多數說，基於委託證券，應遵期向付款人提示，遭拒絕後，始得向發票人追索，似為追索權。（2）第2項乃執票人對前手追索權，其時效起算日，依舊通說，始日不算入。但依新說則自當日起算。至於前手係排除主債務人。但支票情形，又發生提示日與退票日期之爭議，有待修法解決。（3）第3項乃受追索之背書人所行使第二次以後之再追索權。已為清償之背書人自清償之日起算，當中已為清償者，借用日本學說，係採由債權人取回票據之日，不問是否已使債權人獲得滿足之日。另外，匯票本票之保證人對其前手追索權亦屬本項範圍。日本票據法，明確區分信用證券與支付證券之立法。信用證券對於時效採差等主義。但對於支付證券之時效採均一主義，則於追索權時效像自提示期限經過後起算，不同於我國採自提示日起算。另外，再追索之背書人，依日本之學說，採不限於已為現實清償而取回票據，係重形式，現實接受票據證券之返還即可構成。比方面於我國鋒、較少介入研究者，筆者不揣譾陋，大膽嘗試，祈能有所創見。

A right of arising on a bill may no longer be exercised after three years have elapsed. That right is a system of prescription. Against the maker, or his guarantor of a note payable on demand, form the date of the note. All actions arising out of a bill of exchange against the acceptor are barred after three years , reckoned form the date of maturity, payment of a bill of which falls due on alegal holiday cannot be demanded until the next business day. Where any of these proceedings must be taken within a certain limit of time the last of which is a legal holidays the limit of time is extended until the first business day which follows the expiration of that time.