In traditional civil law jurisdictions, there have been various choices of structure and logic for the civil law expression of mortgage prescription. Article 202 of the Chinese Property Law gives its own original expression on this matter. However, this expression is designed expediently for some practical purposes and, as a result, its content is too simple to be interpreted comprehensively. Various views on the interpretation of the mortgage prescription expression in China are confused and assumed to be ineffective both in law-making and in legal hermeneutics. According to the rule of statutory real rights, mortgage prescription should be subject to the specific provisions of property law and has nothing to do with the limitation of action generally. In consideration of this fact, Chinese Property Law cannot draw on the expression of mortgage prescription in the civil laws of France, Germany and Japan, but may benefit from relevant expressions in the “civil law” of Taiwan Province. It means the end of all the confused interpretations if Article 202 of the Chinese Property Law expresses the changes and effects of a mortgage based on scheduled period.